In-House Diamond Search (beta)

[pricescope]

We just published a beta version of "in-house" diamond search. It is available from the front and search result pages as well as from the search bar on the forum.

"In-house" search will show you diamonds that are in vendor''s private inventories as opposite to generic listings where majority of results are virtual diamonds.

This will also allow vendors with smaller inventories to show their stuff, which otherwise would be drawn in thousands of virtual diamonds.

The vendors who list their "in-house" inventories will be responsible for keeping their listings up to date themselves.

The functionality is still in beta version and few improvements should be published soon.

Suggestions and bug reports are welcome :

 

[Kaleigh]

I think that's great!!! Very helpful indeed.

 

[Shay37]

Awesome idea. Thank you for the heads up.

shay

 

[belle]

hehehehe..i just happened to find it before this was posted. it is wonderful. very well done!

thank you!

 

[AndyRosse]

Wow! This is a wonderful idea! Time to go search...

 

[MissAva]

I think it will be fantastic if there was a way to elimanate stones that are out of your price range from coming up.

 

[belle]

Date: 11/9/2005 8:19:33 PM
Author: Matatora
I think it will be fantastic if there was a way to elimanate stones that are out of your price range from coming up.

matatora, you can ''re-filter'' your search and change the price (or specs) at the bottom of the page.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Well done Mystro

The new Spread is what the carat weight difference would be comapred to a 53% table Tolkowsky Round with a very thin girdle.
We choose that rather than surface area etc because you can relate it back to what you are gaining or loosing relevant to the carat weight difference which has the largest price impact.

And note the little + sign that expands out more info if the vendor is one that provides more info.

Well done Leonid.
Now encourage all your favorite vendors to get their goodies up.
And make suggestions for improvements

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/9/2005 8:19:33 PM
Author: Matatora
I think it will be fantastic if there was a way to elimanate stones that are out of your price range from coming up.

Yes, find a new lover on the side

 

[MissAva]

Why is it that not all of the diamonds that come up in the Search by Cut, and not in the In House search if they are in house?

And why do the same stoens come up at diffrent prices? I put in the same numbers both times. There were more examples but the file limit size meant I had to cut the list.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 11/9/2005 8:34:51 PM
Author: Matatora
Why is it that not all of the diamonds that come up in the Search by Cut, and not in the In House search if they are in house?

It might be a problem with generating of the data file. Which diamonds in SbyQ are not In-House (note, GOG doesn't submit their stones for in-house list). I'm going to check it now.

Another thing is that carat size for AGS graded stones should be up to 3 digits after period...

...And why do the same stoens come up at diffrent prices? I put in the same numbers both times. There were more examples but the file limit size meant I had to cut the list.

Price difference is known issue. I hope it is not higher than on the vendor's site (it should be either lower or the same)

 

[perry]

Leonid:

Great Idea.... A few bugs to work out. But, life would not be fun without a few critters to deal with.

I look forward to how well it works in a month when all the bugs are worked out and all the vendors get the hang of keeping their diamond list up to date.

Perry

 

[Daniel B]

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 11/9/2005 8:01:18 PM
Author:Pricescope
Suggestions and bug reports are welcome :

Leonid,

Thanks for your continued efforts to add value added options to Pricescope.

A couple of things I saw:

a) while in the new db, if constrain to add screen for "AGS0," error message: line 5 & line 7 incorrect syntax error...but, when constrain includes H&A, the AGS0 is also automatically picked up, and the search continues OK

b) improvement on the new db experienced, when sorting by price. Now just click once to have the sort lowest to highest. Since most of us will prefer to cherry pick from the bottom, it''s a small change consistent with preferred use.

Thanks again,

 

[pricescope]

Thanks, Ira.

AGS0 related bug is fixed but we probably have to get rid of AGS0 search option. It is not clear now whether diamond is AGS0 unless vendors specified it separately.

Re: sorting. When you click on the column header once, the table will be sorted in ascending order. Next click on the same column header will sort it in descending order... I thought it should do.

 

[valeria101]

Never mind...

I was wondering if fancies are compared to the same round refference for sperad... and figured out that they are anyway.

Poor princess cuts

although some come up relatively large without anything else looking weird.



The new serach looks great, Leonid

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/10/2005 5:18:49 AM
Author: valeria101

Never mind...

I was wondering if fancies are compared to the same round refference for sperad... and figured out that they are anyway.

Poor princess cuts

although some come up relatively large without anything else looking weird.



The new serach looks great, Leonid

The only shapes done for spread so far are princess, emerald cut, radiant and asscher (and round).
It is a bit hard with other shapes.
Leonid are you taking a bit off for the corners on em,radiant and asscher?

 

[oldminer]

Please explain how the spread ratio is calculated. I have been working on making all fancy shaped diamonds have a measure of face-up surface area to weight ratio. This must be sort of similar. Are we on the same path?

This is a great thing for diamond retailers who want to get into the Internet selling arena but only wanted to list what they owned without getting lost in the sea of virtual listings. Thanks for all the hard work.

 

[strmrdr]

I think spread should be dropped.
The diamond with the best spread is not always the best diamond.

If fancies spread are listed it should be against like diamonds.
Good luck coming up on with a number for asschers im happy with :}

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/10/2005 8:31:41 AM
Author: oldminer
Please explain how the spread ratio is calculated. I have been working on making all fancy shaped diamonds have a measure of face-up surface area to weight ratio. This must be sort of similar. Are we on the same path?

never work with cut corner stones without it being built into software that gets the number from a full 3d scan and even then the lower end scanners are next to useless on step cuts with gross errors showing up.
In an ideal word where everyone had helium level scanners for all size stones it might work.
There is a another issue also the actual reflective surface area is not only dependant on the diameter of the diamond but on its crown angle as well.


https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/which-diamond-would-have-more-face-up-surface-area.35879/

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/10/2005 8:31:41 AM
Author: oldminer
Please explain how the spread ratio is calculated. I have been working on making all fancy shaped diamonds have a measure of face-up surface area to weight ratio. This must be sort of similar. Are we on the same path?

It doesn''t seem so. I''ve tried to check some of the scores based on the previous explanation on Garry''s thread: they are the area of the stone divided by the area of a AGS0 round of the same weight with 53% table and thin girdle.

May I ask...
If this was instead given as area/weight, what could be a fair refference for this indicator?

 

[pricescope]

Date: 11/10/2005 8:42:44 AM
Author: strmrdr
I think spread should be dropped.
The diamond with the best spread is not always the best diamond.

True but spread is a desired feature still and some people might prefer bigger-looking diamond all other features kept the same

Here is how we calculate it at the moment:

1. We estimate carat weight of the Tolkowsky cut round (with 53% table) with the same face-up area. E.g. face up area of 32.88 mm² corresponds to 1.0 ct Tolkowsky cut; 52.17 mm² to 2.0ct Tolkowsky, etc.
   
2. Then we take the % difference between carat weights of the diamond in question and Tolkowsky with same face-up projection area.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/10/2005 8:42:44 AM
Author: strmrdr

I think spread should be dropped.
The diamond with the best spread is not always the best diamond.

There''s no way to have an index of ''quality'' or similar... This is still a bit of info that is worth telling, IMO. All more so since the price depends on it already - at least for the ends of the spectrum. It is a bit tedious to check, but not too much so, if you wish.

Sorry, but I can''t agree with the complicated surface are versus maximum section reasoning. No one gets to see that total reflective area laid down. Perhaps it is right to say that some loss of ''spread'' in favor of crown height is not bad... but I am not sure if measuring surface is the thing to do.

How many are going to actually look at the mysterious spread % as a quality check anyway?

 

[pricescope]

Date: 11/10/2005 9:58:16 AM
Author: valeria101

May I ask...
If this was instead given as area/weight, what could be a fair reference for this indicator?

We discussed it with Garry too. With this approach diamonds with less carat weight will have much bigger Area/Carat factor. E.g.

Carat - Area mm² - A/C
0.3ct - 14.72mm² - 49.1mm²/ct
3.0ct - 68.36mm² - 22.79mm²/ct

At the same time their prices will be incompatible since the price increases parabolically with the carat weight...

Another way is to calculate Price per mm² like tiles or hardwood floors

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/10/2005 10:04:18 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 11/10/2005 8:42:44 AM


How many are going to actually look at the mysterious spread % as a quality check anyway?

Thats one of the things Im not looking forward to happening that could.
Some of the diamonds dont have a ton of info avalable.
So someone could decide to buy based mostly on spread wich is not a good idea.
Spread is important but its 5th or 6th down my list of what makes a quality diamond
Take 2 diamonds and all you have is diameter and depth and a spread rating and its the only information you have on cut, the spread rating can take on unreasonable weight and be misleading.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/10/2005 10:13:10 AM
Author: Pricescope


Another way is to calculate Price per mm² like tiles or hardwood floors

I did this once with a batch of a couple of hundred princess cuts and rounds from your database - the fancies look like a bargain by this rule

On the side... Garry mentions above the formulas for other shapes are a pain.
However, there seem to be some standard ones in use already. Here''s what I am talking about: LINK (see down the page).
These are formulas for estimating weight, but could be turned around I suppose.

I took a bit of time to see how they were derived and worked out the one for marquises - it seems that the contour was approximated with circle sections (no ''bulge'') which is still fairly precise.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/9/2005 8:28:10 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Well done Mystro


The new Spread is what the carat weight difference would be comapred to a 53% table Tolkowsky Round with a very thin girdle.

is that a realistic baseline considering none of the people posting in this thread so far would buy it because of the V-thin girdle and the breakage potentual?
Why a 53% table? 56 would be more relaistic.
Why v-thin girde? medium would be more realistic.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 11/10/2005 10:56:15 AM
Author: strmrdr

is that a realistic baseline considering none of the people posting in this thread so far would buy it because of the V-thin girdle and the breakage potentual?
Why a 53% table? 56 would be more relaistic.
Why v-thin girde? medium would be more realistic.

It really doesn't matter because it is just a reference point (unit).

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/10/2005 10:56:15 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 11/9/2005 8:28:10 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Well done Mystro


The new Spread is what the carat weight difference would be compared to a 53% table Tolkowsky Round with a very thin girdle.

is that a realistic baseline

Those are the AGS-s with the largest surface area.

... since it is debatable what is the ''usual'' set of parameters, this would be the most strict reference. Easier to motivate than a median point, IMO.

Anyway, I can''t wait to see questions coming in about these new ''size'' metrics. If ''SIZE'' instead of ''spread'' would be column header, I''d surely expect a whiff of steam.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/10/2005 11:04:11 AM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 11/10/2005 10:56:15 AM

Author: strmrdr


is that a realistic baseline considering none of the people posting in this thread so far would buy it because of the V-thin girdle and the breakage potentual?

Why a 53% table? 56 would be more relaistic.

Why v-thin girde? medium would be more realistic.

It really doesn''t matter because it is just a reference point (unit).

I dont agree, if that diamond were posted it would come out as a perfect spread and would not be a good choice to buy.
A better alternative would be to take the mean of the search by cut database as the 0 point with a hard hca 2 cut off.
It would be a much more realistic number.