Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos, etc

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John
Many, many thanks to you for your input here. As you can see, I am an inquisitive person (as so many here are). I seldom feel pleased by simply scratching the surface. I am here because I have taken a large amount of interest in diamonds, namely round brilliants as I have been reading here for months about them to make a more informed purchase. I genuinely like to help people, and do want to make sure my advice is as sound as possible.

I know many folks here likely see me as being anti-superideal. It's not the case at all, and I have nothing but respect for the vendors specializing in such stones and advancing consumer awareness on cut. I do hope that you, Paul, Wink, Jon, and Bryan can recognize that and view me not as a consumer set on turning people away from precision cut stones. If someone is interested in a superideal and has done their due diligence to come to that decision after weighing the pros and cons of each route, I am glad to recommend any one of you as you have earned the trust of so many and deserve every bit of business coming your way. I simply try to weigh in if it seems the person is not yet fully aware of the differences they can expect from a strictly visual standpoint.

I certainly wish to maintain mutual respect for one another, because as soon as that is lost the discussion becomes infinitely less useful for everyone. I am giving the opinions of an average consumer, admittedly a novice, which I hope you can see. Those opinions can be used as learning tools for you, just as I can learn from your expert opinions. I very much look forward to your added input here and thank you for taking the time to help me and others.

Thanks for the kind comments pfunk. I appreciate the exchange of information and especially the detail on your perspective. I'm also a proponent of productive dialogue, and respecting different-strokes for different-folks.

As you admit your novice status (though articulate and a quick-study) I'll admit that seasoned pros should never stop learning. Especially for those of us working to provide internet-advice, a couple of the old Steven Covey habits are invaluable to keep in mind: "Seek first to understand, Then to be understood" ~ and especially ~ "Sharpen the saw. Sharpen the saw. Sharpen the saw." See as much as you can. Regularly. In different contexts and environments. And then ask the person standing next to you what *they* see, as it may surprise you. This sharpening was critical to improving my understanding of aural-cognition as a music-educator, and it remains invaluable in my understanding of visual-cognition as a gemologist.

It may interest you to know that my journey toward a career-change to diamond specialist began in a manner that resembles your first steps here on Pricescope, albeit a long time ago in a forum far, far away. Be careful, or you may get addicted enough that you might wind up opening the Twin-Cities’ first combination pharmacy/jewelry-store.

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Great survey, John. It would be great if you could share some results, though I imagine it's valuable IP.

Thank you. I have received permission to share the survey summary.

Survey Questions:

* When Showing diamonds, in general, next to Crafted By Infinity do your clients see a difference?
* If any do, how do they characterize the difference?
* If they purchase the CBI vs the general diamond what's the most commonly expressed reason?

* When showing a GIA3EX, top ASET, next to Crafted By Infinity do your clients see a difference?
* If any do, how do they characterize the difference?
* If they purchase the CBI vs the 3EX top ASET what's the most commonly expressed reason?

* Do any other reasons stand out?
* Generally speaking, which drives Crafted By Infinity purchases: 1 highest, 6 lowest.

So far 12 professionals in a few different CBI showrooms have submitted it (work in progress). Since they are at the counter every day, working with all kinds of diamonds and clients, their voices will be more meaningful than mine. I’ll need approval to share that internal info here. Stay tuned.

Reiterating: This is not scientific, it’s feedback coming from jewelers who show diamonds every day.

Responses:
http://table55.com/main/2015-cbi-pdsa-survey1-in-progress.pdf

I’ll update the link as I continue to poll our various showrooms.

I never did check back with the last thread you linked in which you responded to my posts. I think you articulated very well the macro evolution of cut improvements that have led to better looking and better reflecting diamonds. Thank you.

You’re very welcome. I appreciate you mentioning it.

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Thank you John for your informative post. I always enjoy reading words coming from Sir John.

Tip of the hat. And thanks for your enthusiasm.

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

A secret that many in the diamond trade counts on is people don't know what a given diamond is supposed to look like in any given lighting so they see nothing wrong with even the worst cut stones.
Well that is slowly changing as people are seeing more well cut stones.
The current tools can give you pointers in the right direction for finding one.

As always 2weeks plus in your own environment and life is the real exam for any diamond.

I would add my belief that better-informed jewelers could also influence this for the positive.

 

[teobdl]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John, Thank you for sharing the results.

The most interesting for me are questions 4, 5:

When showing a GIA3EX, top ASET, next to Crafted By Infinity do your clients see a difference?
Total: 12
Yes: 9 | Most: 2 | Not Always: 1 | No: 0
If any do, how do they characterize the difference?
x 6 (Sparkle) (Sparkle) (Bigger sparkle) (Better sparkle and fire)
x 2 Light performance
Similar "power words" as above (Brightness, contrast, flashes…)
Brighter
Crisper performance
After explaining the cutting, if they don't see visual difference they see value difference

Though it's admittedly not a scientific survey, I cannot argue with those results. I think digging deeper would require more disclosure on the methods: how the jewelers sell and compare the diamonds, the language used by the jeweler, vested interests and monetary concerns, etc... all things that I think are probably asking too much and would be less helpful than a sufficiently powered double-blind controlled a/b test (which is also probably asking too much, but maybe worth it if you gather enough super ideal cutters together).

Frankly, these results have me questioning my personal ability and the ability of a few people I know and trust to reliably and absolutely differentiate between "super" ideals and "regular" ideals in many lighting environments--a test that I did when making my final decision on an ER. Or maybe PS has gotten me good at selecting strong "regular" ideals. Whatever the reason, I'm sufficiently convinced enough to be a hopeful but skeptic believer in the PS "super" ideal. Looking forward to more shopping in 10 or so years.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Great survey, John. It would be great if you could share some results, though I imagine it's valuable IP.

Thank you. I have received permission to share the survey summary.

Survey Questions:

* When Showing diamonds, in general, next to Crafted By Infinity do your clients see a difference?
* If any do, how do they characterize the difference?
* If they purchase the CBI vs the general diamond what's the most commonly expressed reason?

* When showing a GIA3EX, top ASET, next to Crafted By Infinity do your clients see a difference?
* If any do, how do they characterize the difference?
* If they purchase the CBI vs the 3EX top ASET what's the most commonly expressed reason?

* Do any other reasons stand out?
* Generally speaking, which drives Crafted By Infinity purchases: 1 highest, 6 lowest.

So far 12 professionals in a few different CBI showrooms have submitted it (work in progress). Since they are at the counter every day, working with all kinds of diamonds and clients, their voices will be more meaningful than mine. I’ll need approval to share that internal info here. Stay tuned.

Reiterating: This is not scientific, it’s feedback coming from jewelers who show diamonds every day.

Responses:
http://table55.com/main/2015-cbi-pdsa-survey1-in-progress.pdf

I’ll update the link as I continue to poll our various showrooms.

I never did check back with the last thread you linked in which you responded to my posts. I think you articulated very well the macro evolution of cut improvements that have led to better looking and better reflecting diamonds. Thank you.

You’re very welcome. I appreciate you mentioning it.

Hi John,

re:When Showing diamonds, in general, next to Crafted By Infinity do your clients see a difference?

Can you please clarify when clients received information which diamond had been Crafted By Infinity?
before they answered to the question or after? in other words, was test blind?

 

[Medical]

Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos, etc

Great survey, John. It would be great if you could share some results, though I imagine it's valuable IP.

Thank you. I have received permission to share the survey summary.

Survey Questions:

* When Showing diamonds, in general, next to Crafted By Infinity do your clients see a difference?
* If any do, how do they characterize the difference?
* If they purchase the CBI vs the general diamond what's the most commonly expressed reason?

* When showing a GIA3EX, top ASET, next to Crafted By Infinity do your clients see a difference?
* If any do, how do they characterize the difference?
* If they purchase the CBI vs the 3EX top ASET what's the most commonly expressed reason?

* Do any other reasons stand out?
* Generally speaking, which drives Crafted By Infinity purchases: 1 highest, 6 lowest.

So far 12 professionals in a few different CBI showrooms have submitted it (work in progress). Since they are at the counter every day, working with all kinds of diamonds and clients, their voices will be more meaningful than mine. I’ll need approval to share that internal info here. Stay tuned.

Reiterating: This is not scientific, it’s feedback coming from jewelers who show diamonds every day.

Responses:
http://table55.com/main/2015-cbi-pdsa-survey1-in-progress.pdf

I’ll update the link as I continue to poll our various showrooms.

I never did check back with the last thread you linked in which you responded to my posts. I think you articulated very well the macro evolution of cut improvements that have led to better looking and better reflecting diamonds. Thank you.

You’re very welcome. I appreciate you mentioning it.

Hi John,

re:When Showing diamonds, in general, next to Crafted By Infinity do your clients see a difference?

Can you please clarify when clients received information which diamond had been Crafted By Infinity?
before they answered to the question or after? in other words, was test blind?

These are good questions and a great idea Serg- and thanks John for doing a preliminary study, it all looks very promising. It might be nice for marketing if you were to do a double blind study, thinking about it. Would certainly be a great way to put to bed the recent arguments about super ideals vs others- and also to advertise the super ideal difference.

I don't know a ton about diamonds, but if I were designing it I'd create a selection of the following;

A GIA 3x with less than ideal optics and a poor HCA score

A GIA 3x with a good HCA score/pretty good optics

An AGS ideal that misses the super ideal mark (WF expert selection-esque)

A CBI or other super ideal cut

Use a randomizer to tag the diamonds 1, 2, 3, 4 and then give the diamonds to a rep that wouldn't know enough to identify which is which. Have them line up the diamonds in any order they want.

Bring in (either one person at a time, or multiple but do not allow them to talk or discuss the diamonds with each other), and then have them rank the diamonds in order on various criteria with brief 1 sentence descriptions of what each criteria means for those who don't know (ex: Fire: the flashes of colored light that come off of a diamond), with brightness, scintillation, etc and of course overall preference.

Of course, I'm not sure how many consumers actually want evidence based advertisements or if it'd actually bring in additional revenue..but results dependent it could allow you to say you have "the only super ideal proven superior in a scientific study using the eyes of consumers" or start marketing under "the difference she can see" or something like that haha.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John, Thank you for sharing the results.

The most interesting for me are questions 4, 5:

When showing a GIA3EX, top ASET, next to Crafted By Infinity do your clients see a difference?
Total: 12
Yes: 9 | Most: 2 | Not Always: 1 | No: 0
If any do, how do they characterize the difference?
x 6 (Sparkle) (Sparkle) (Bigger sparkle) (Better sparkle and fire)
x 2 Light performance
Similar "power words" as above (Brightness, contrast, flashes…)
Brighter
Crisper performance
After explaining the cutting, if they don't see visual difference they see value difference

Though it's admittedly not a scientific survey, I cannot argue with those results. I think digging deeper would require more disclosure on the methods: how the jewelers sell and compare the diamonds, the language used by the jeweler, vested interests and monetary concerns, etc... all things that I think are probably asking too much and would be less helpful than a sufficiently powered double-blind controlled a/b test (which is also probably asking too much, but maybe worth it if you gather enough super ideal cutters together).

Frankly, these results have me questioning my personal ability and the ability of a few people I know and trust to reliably and absolutely differentiate between "super" ideals and "regular" ideals in many lighting environments--a test that I did when making my final decision on an ER. Or maybe PS has gotten me good at selecting strong "regular" ideals. Whatever the reason, I'm sufficiently convinced enough to be a hopeful but skeptic believer in the PS "super" ideal. Looking forward to more shopping in 10 or so years.

Being employed in a profession that depends highly on quality studies, I would agree with a lot of this. In order for the study to carry much weight, you will need to be conscious to have a very detailed method which ensures consistency from one consumer to the next and from one jeweler to the next. I personally would find it much more useful to have the consumers answer questions directly, rather than have the jewlers interpreting the consumers answers and then reporting them.

Serg raises an important question. Did consumers know which diamond was which when they were looking at them? It seems this nonscientific study was conducted in the course of diamond sales, I assume because you don't want to ask jewelers or consumers for their time to conduct something that really doesn't have any bearing on them. Obviously it would be better if they weren't making a purchase, but rather simply comparing a set of diamonds. In this case, it would be even more powerful if the jewelers were blinded as well.

Based on these results (majority of consumers identifying superideal as superior), it would be well worth it for you to take it to the next level with a more scientific study. If the results remain the same, you have a powerful marketing tool.

 

[proto]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Much respect to the members of the forum who have contributed so far.

Not meaning to attack the results of the survey, but the results were from jewellers who sell and stock CBI diamonds.

The results would be meaningful and persuasive (for me) if these were a double blind study against average consumers. Not even educated consumers, but the average person on the street.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Much respect to the members of the forum who have contributed so far.

Not meaning to attack the results of the survey, but the results were from jewellers who sell and stock CBI diamonds.

The results would be meaningful and persuasive (for me) if these were a double blind study against average consumers. Not even educated consumers, but the average person on the street.

To add to this... I looked at question #5 and the responses to it and one stuck out to me. The question is "When showing a GIA3EX, top ASET, next to Crafted By Infinity do your clients see a difference? The response was "After explaining the cutting, if they don't see visual difference they see value difference".

Does this mean the consumers were being given the typical sales pitch and being educated on how the CBI diamond is cut differently/superiorly to the other diamonds? I also see the response "light performance" which again leads me to believe they were given the usual sales pitch including education on the effects of cut. I don't think many average consumers would describe one diamond as having "superior light performance" unless they had heard a salesman using the term.

 

[Medical]

Much respect to the members of the forum who have contributed so far.

Not meaning to attack the results of the survey, but the results were from jewellers who sell and stock CBI diamonds.

The results would be meaningful and persuasive (for me) if these were a double blind study against average consumers. Not even educated consumers, but the average person on the street.

To add to this... I looked at question #5 and the responses to it and one stuck out to me. The question is "When showing a GIA3EX, top ASET, next to Crafted By Infinity do your clients see a difference? The response was "After explaining the cutting, if they don't see visual difference they see value difference".

Does this mean the consumers were being given the typical sales pitch and being educated on how the CBI diamond is cut differently/superiorly to the other diamonds? I also see the response "light performance" which again leads me to believe they were given the usual sales pitch including education on the effects of cut. I don't think many average consumers would describe one diamond as having "superior light performance" unless they had heard a salesman using the term.

Yes, there are a number of biases that exist in the conducted study. However, it does increase the likelihood that a double blind study could yield favorable results and it is a good first step.

Since pfunk and others are delving into the possible biases of this data, I'll try to outline a few of them clearly.

First, there is observer expectancy bias. The people conducting the study believe their product is better and as they are not blinded, this can skew results towards a type I error (documenting a difference when no such difference exists). The way to decrease an observer expectancy bias is through blinding of the observers conducting the study to which diamond is which. This may not be possible if the observer is say, John, who can likely recognize a CBI from across a football field haha, thus I suggested a less knowledgeable person be in charge of the study outlined above.

Selection bias. The study population is significantly different from the general population in their experience with and knowledge about diamonds. An example in medical clinical trials is the Berkson effect, where the study population is selected from the hospital and thus less healthy than the general population, which changes how drugs will act in the study population compared to the general public. The way to decrease selection bias is through randomization of selection of participants and selecting from a pool as close to the general population as possible (for example, just as you wouldn't want to use the ophthalmology waiting room for selecting participants, you don't want to use just the diamond experts either.)

Third, there is procedure bias, which is a result of subjects in each group not being treated the same. In this case, subjects are educated on the difference between the diamonds prior to answering questions, and anonymity of responses are not preserved. This introduces a number of problems such as placebo effect (a recent study actually showed that the more expensive a drug is, the more placebo effect the drug can cause), and possible intimidation of the study subjects into not wanting to state an inability to see a difference in front of the experts. This can be remedied with anonymous deidentified surveys given during viewing

I believe the protocol I outlined above would technically remedy these biases. Do you agree, pfunk?

That being said, I realize that this is not a drug trial being cleared by the FDA or a journal submission and it can't be expected that so many resources would be put towards such a trial just for the scientifically minded on PS. However, should they conduct it, the motivation would be if they receive positive results then the marketing possibilities seem quite good, and that there is precedent of cost effectiveness, for example coke vs pepsi taste tests.

 

[teobdl]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

As stated already, the survey was never purported to be scientific. As I understand it, It was meant as a rough gauge to understand what sellers are finding on the floor when they show and attempt to sell CBI's.

I have said it many times before: I would absolutely be in favor of a double blind controlled test. Preferably using different environments.

But let me explain a bit why I find the survey results at least promising in demonstrating a real perceived difference between CBI vs others:

I assume that the 12 seller respondents had no reason to amp up their customer's viewpoints in what seems like an informal, informational survey that was never intended to be public. 9/12 of sellers saying that all customers see a difference is quite strong, with 2/3 of the remaining saying that most customers see a difference.

The profit margin for a CBI vs a GIA 3x or AGS 0 is probably equal or less. What reason do they have to sell a CBI vs another diamond other than moving higher priced inventory? Perhaps the sellers do make more money on a CBI sale... I don't know, but I doubt it. In the end they just want a sale.

It's unfair to say that customers should be completely uninformed of cut or "performance" when making a determination about preferences. A perfect study would stratify knowledgeable people from completely uninformed and maybe one or two gradients between. It is possible to coach someone into the 'right' answer, but I'd need to know more about the sales pitch to be convinced that customers weren't seeing a difference in these sellers' showrooms.

Stepping away from the survey for a second, I will state that when I've proposed the double blind idea in the past, Paul and Karl and others have essentially said that the results will be meaningless because the difference in performance takes place not in a single sitting but over the course of at least 2 weeks in many different environments and conditions. I took this to mean that a super ideal couldn't be guaranteed to be picked from a regular great ASET ideal in a single sitting. This doesn't exactly contradict the results of the survey, but I do see some discordance: how could slightly informed customers repeatedly see "performance" differences in a single sitting when even the cutter of the diamond wouldn't want to do a double blind single sitting test?

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Since pfunk and others are delving into the possible biases of this data, I'll try to outline a few of them clearly.

No argument here. These are just Qs we asked jewelers.

Context from the prior page. https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-h-a-photos-etc.212008/#post-3856012#p3856012

I would ask the same about your showroom customers. I assume you only carry your CBI superideal stones, and with no "inferior" stones to serve as comparison... ...Now let's take customers who are in the search for a diamond for their engagement. If you were to offer up a stone for each customer based upon what they are looking for and their budget, and then have them compare them to non h&a ideal stones, how often would the customer choose the CBI stone? If the other stones were allowed to be higher color/clarity/carat or a combination of them to match to the price of the CBI stone, would they still choose the CBI because the visual differences from the cut are profound enough to make them sacrifice on the other aspects? Obviously you probably don't know the answers to these questions, but they are certainly fair to bring up for discussion and debate would you agree?

I replied then that our 2015 1H survey asked such questions, but I'd need approval to share internal info here.

Approval given. Answers shared.

That being said, I realize that this is not a drug trial being cleared by the FDA or a journal submission and it can't be expected that so many resources would be put towards such a trial just for the scientifically minded on PS. However, should they conduct it, the motivation would be if they receive positive results then the marketing possibilities seem quite good, and that there is precedent of cost effectiveness, for example coke vs pepsi taste tests.

Based on experience, I'd also expand it to longer exposure. There’s the “immediate” reaction (as in showrooms). The “2-week rule” (per Karl_K) and then the “30-day-test” per some e-tailers. Going even farther, in the different time frames it would also be interesting to classify the background and mindset of people who not only perceived, but also those who valued a technical difference. As an example, engineers and architects are regularly attracted, but that makes sense from a left-brained precision perspective. On the other side, pro musicians are also regularly attracted, and speak of the visual aesthetics, which would seem right-brained.

 

[proto]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

You know what I would love to see?

CBI Infinity diamond
Whiteflash ACA
Brian Gavin Signature
AGS 000
GIA Ex3

for sake of argument, lets pick a fairly regular statline

1 carat
G colour
VS2 clarity

side by side, in a GOG video.

Not sure if this would ever happen, but would love to see it.

Because CBI seem to charge more than WF and BG, who in turn charge more than AGS 000 which trade higher than GIA Ex3

now the results may not come through in a video because you need to see it in person, and I take that, but would still be interesting to see it in a video.

I have seen Solasfera vs HA diamonds vs GIA Ex3 (I think).

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

We can never quantify taste based issues and selecting the most beautiful diamond cut is 100% taste based.
Of course convincing people that something is "scientifically better" influences how they view the stones.
We sell CBI diamonds and a wide range of other diamonds- we never advertise using science as a lever to influence the buyers.
Those who have purchased CBI stones have been thrilled. But such buyers represent a small percentage of people who are shopping.
Using totally blind methods when showing the diamonds results in drastically different results.

Someone suggested Gog video to compare- except the GOG videos are designed to show the stones the way Jon sees them.
To get a true educational video we would need someone to produce it with no commercial interests.

 

[proto]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I would equally watch the video if CBI created the video comparison

if blind surveys would result in totally different results, are you saying the results of the survey are due to the biases identified above in this thread???

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Since pfunk and others are delving into the possible biases of this data, I'll try to outline a few of them clearly.

No argument here. These are just Qs we asked jewelers.

Context from the prior page. https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-h-a-photos-etc.212008/#post-3856012#p3856012

I would ask the same about your showroom customers. I assume you only carry your CBI superideal stones, and with no "inferior" stones to serve as comparison... ...Now let's take customers who are in the search for a diamond for their engagement. If you were to offer up a stone for each customer based upon what they are looking for and their budget, and then have them compare them to non h&a ideal stones, how often would the customer choose the CBI stone? If the other stones were allowed to be higher color/clarity/carat or a combination of them to match to the price of the CBI stone, would they still choose the CBI because the visual differences from the cut are profound enough to make them sacrifice on the other aspects? Obviously you probably don't know the answers to these questions, but they are certainly fair to bring up for discussion and debate would you agree?

I replied then that our 2015 1H survey asked such questions, but I'd need approval to share internal info here.

Approval given. Answers shared.

That being said, I realize that this is not a drug trial being cleared by the FDA or a journal submission and it can't be expected that so many resources would be put towards such a trial just for the scientifically minded on PS. However, should they conduct it, the motivation would be if they receive positive results then the marketing possibilities seem quite good, and that there is precedent of cost effectiveness, for example coke vs pepsi taste tests.

Based on experience, I'd also expand it to longer exposure. There’s the “immediate” reaction (as in showrooms). The “2-week rule” (per Karl_K) and then the “30-day-test” per some e-tailers. Going even farther, in the different time frames it would also be interesting to classify the background and mindset of people who not only perceived, but also those who valued a technical difference. As an example, engineers and architects are regularly attracted, but that makes sense from a left-brained precision perspective. On the other side, pro musicians are also regularly attracted, and speak of the visual aesthetics, which would seem right-brained.

John,
I assume then that these in store comparisons were done between stones of similar $ value then? The sizes, color, clarities would have been variable then correct?

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Also, another question I would have liked to have seen included would be "If they chose the GIA XXX/AGS 000 over the CBI, what were the reasons why?" All we can figure out by the questions asked is why people were choosing CBI, but not the other side of the coin.

 

[teobdl]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John,
I assume then that these in store comparisons were done between stones of similar $ value then? The sizes, color, clarities would have been variable then correct?

I think it was up to the sales person to simply show the CBI and other diamonds as s/he would show any other diamonds: a combination of all factors you listed depending on the buyers' interests. The circumstances of showing the diamonds were from making a sale, not conducting a study and probably not purely educational.

 

[JoshuaNiamehr]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi John,

Not sure if I missed this but what were the specs of the GIA Triple Ex's? Beyond the 4 C's

We are all on the same page that GIA has a very broad definition of Excellent.

Joshua

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

We can never quantify taste based issues and selecting the most beautiful diamond cut is 100% taste based.
Of course convincing people that something is "scientifically better" influences how they view the stones.
We sell CBI diamonds and a wide range of other diamonds- we never advertise using science as a lever to influence the buyers.
Those who have purchased CBI stones have been thrilled. But such buyers represent a small percentage of people who are shopping.
Using totally blind methods when showing the diamonds results in drastically different results.

Someone suggested Gog video to compare- except the GOG videos are designed to show the stones the way Jon sees them.
To get a true educational video we would need someone to produce it with no commercial interests.

I agree that indeed taste plays a big role. But for a study like this, I would want the stones cut to similar "ideal" proportions. Try to keep proportions close to the same from diamond to diamond, which would leave the cause of the differences seen by consumers to be the high precision of the cut. It is this high precision that is touted to lead to subtle yet very real differences that can be observed. A study such as this would show how many folks are seeing it and gravitating towards it.

I also agree that educating consumers on the importance of cut is fine. Diamond literacy of the consumers can range from none to very versed. I would be open to allowing every type of consumer to participate. The blinding of consumers, and those showing the diamonds, is the key.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John,
I assume then that these in store comparisons were done between stones of similar $ value then? The sizes, color, clarities would have been variable then correct?

I think it was up to the sales person to simply show the CBI and other diamonds as s/he would show any other diamonds: a combination of all factors you listed depending on the buyers' interests. The circumstances of showing the diamonds were from making a sale, not conducting a study and probably not purely educational.

This is an essential point.
If we did a blind comparison of stones that all cost the same amount, the results could be very enlightening.
Say $10k buys any of these ( hypothetical comparison)
*) 1ct "Super Ideal" G/VS2
*) 1.30ct "Normal" EX/EX/EX
*) 1.75ct VG cut grade J/SI2
In my opinion that would show a far more comprehensive range for a broad range of consumers.
This does not preclude ASET/IS or any other type of testing, or observation.
If a consumer has been given an impartial choice of what's available and chooses the Super Ideal, then the tools are great.

To repeat- I LOVE CBI stones- every single one I've seen. But this is more about developing a more refined system of cut grading- and cut discussions that take more aspects into account.
As opposed to a numerical system that proves "scientifically" that one type of optical signature is "better" than another.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

The commentary here is very interesting and amounts to a good blueprint on how a valid study would have to be conducted. It also points up the multitude of factors that would have to be controlled. Not an easy feat to accomplish.

Regarding John's survey, he was very clear that this was an informal poll and not any kind of rigorous study. Just interesting feedback on which some insights might start to be gleaned.

I mentioned in the previous thread that we essentially have an ongoing survey of this nature by virtue of our own showroom operation. Everyday we are showing an assortment of diamonds to customers. Those diamonds consist primarily of a combination our superideals, AGS0 and GIA Triples with good (if not perfect) hearts and arrows, and other diamonds that are not cut with high precision or otherwise fail to get the top cut grade from the lab. Given this range of good choices, customers still choose our superideal at a very high rate. Of course, most of those coming to the showroom have already been educated (corrupted ) in one way or another. Either by talking to one of our diamond consultants or reading about our diamonds on our website or elsewhere. So, our ongoing survey is certainly not scientific either. But I will say that it seems our results are in line with what John's folks are reporting.

 

[smitcompton]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi,


You have been given the results of an internal survey by CBI, and now you want more, and you want our very own vendors to test their own diamonds against each other. Why would anyone agree to this? We don't need the height of competition to reach the shores of Pricescope.

I do have a question that I have been dying to ask. The very high end jewelers,: tiffany, Cartier. Graff, HW, et al, do not have a super ideal brand. They do an internal evaluation of their stones and I I have never heard of anyone saying their stones were anything, but, beautiful. They don't seem to care about the Categories we are discussing, for them its enough to say its from Cartier, so it must be beautiful.

There is a Tiffany ring on Diamond Bistro or Loupe Troupe that has a grading report from Tiffany. I cannot read it, except it does say excellent, excellent, excellent and give the angles which is not clear on my computer. The ctw is 1.45 vs1, I think H color. We all know the price of these jewelers is out of this world, but eliminating price, how do they sell non graded diamonds. By the way this ring is a good price for Tiffany. $18,000.

John Pollack, you are so refreshing. You shine.

Annette

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi,


You have been given the results of an internal survey by CBI, and now you want more, and you want our very own vendors to test their own diamonds against each other. Why would anyone agree to this? We don't need the height of competition to reach the shores of Pricescope.

I do have a question that I have been dying to ask. The very high end jewelers,: tiffany, Cartier. Graff, HW, et al, do not have a super ideal brand. They do an internal evaluation of their stones and I I have never heard of anyone saying there stones were anything, but, beautiful. They don't seem to care about the Categories we are discussing, for them its enough to say its from Cartier, so it must be beautiful.

There is a Tiffany ring on Diamond Bistro or Loupe Troupe that has a grading report from Tiffany. I cannot read it, except it does say excellent, excellent, excellent and give the angles which is not clear on my computer. The ctw is 1.45 vs1, I think H color. We all know the price of these jewelers is out of this world, but eliminating price, how do they sell non graded diamonds. By the way this ring is a good price for Tiffany. $18,000.

John Pollack, you are so refreshing. You shine.

Annette

Annette,
I hope you didn't see this as me personally asking for more. I am thankful John shared the findings of their ongoing CBI survey. BUT, that doesn't mean that the survey was designed to answer the questions posed in this thread. He was kind enough to share what they found, and we are thankful for that. Myself and others are simply stating that in order for the questions of this thread to be answered fully, a more controlled study would need to be completed. We have offered some advice on how such a study might be structured.

I am not trying to make the vendors of PS compete. Not at all. Rather, such a study could be a collective effort of all the PS vendors of superideals. If they would work together to show in a more scientific study that consumers prefer superideals over regular AGS 000, they would all have a much stronger marketing point. If the science isn't yet able to quantify the differences with objective metrics, perhaps consumers eyes and opinions would show a trend towards the superideal in such a study.

 

[Medical]

Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos, etc

Hi,


You have been given the results of an internal survey by CBI, and now you want more, and you want our very own vendors to test their own diamonds against each other. Why would anyone agree to this? We don't need the height of competition to reach the shores of Pricescope.

I do have a question that I have been dying to ask. The very high end jewelers,: tiffany, Cartier. Graff, HW, et al, do not have a super ideal brand. They do an internal evaluation of their stones and I I have never heard of anyone saying there stones were anything, but, beautiful. They don't seem to care about the Categories we are discussing, for them its enough to say its from Cartier, so it must be beautiful.

There is a Tiffany ring on Diamond Bistro or Loupe Troupe that has a grading report from Tiffany. I cannot read it, except it does say excellent, excellent, excellent and give the angles which is not clear on my computer. The ctw is 1.45 vs1, I think H color. We all know the price of these jewelers is out of this world, but eliminating price, how do they sell non graded diamonds. By the way this ring is a good price for Tiffany. $18,000.

John Pollack, you are so refreshing. You shine.

Annette

These are interesting points about Tiffany and Cartier stones, I had always assumed that they did have certs for their stones.

Personally, I don't want or need them to do the study I outlined, as I don't see much necessity for it in my own life. So much of my life is evidence based that sometimes it's nice to make a more emotional purchase without running a T-test or ANOVA for statistical significance. I'd rather pick what appeals to me (and what I believe would appeal to her) most visually and let the pros and prosumers here guide me away from the bad ones- which is one of the best things about this community.

Besides, if she knew I conducted a series of evidence based trials of visual perception vs size/color/clarity compromise to calculate the optimal light performance to other C's ratio she'd probably be pretty mad at my inability to stop working LOL.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi,


You have been given the results of an internal survey by CBI, and now you want more, and you want our very own vendors to test their own diamonds against each other. Why would anyone agree to this? We don't need the height of competition to reach the shores of Pricescope.

I do have a question that I have been dying to ask. The very high end jewelers,: tiffany, Cartier. Graff, HW, et al, do not have a super ideal brand. They do an internal evaluation of their stones and I I have never heard of anyone saying there stones were anything, but, beautiful. They don't seem to care about the Categories we are discussing, for them its enough to say its from Cartier, so it must be beautiful.

There is a Tiffany ring on Diamond Bistro or Loupe Troupe that has a grading report from Tiffany. I cannot read it, except it does say excellent, excellent, excellent and give the angles which is not clear on my computer. The ctw is 1.45 vs1, I think H color. We all know the price of these jewelers is out of this world, but eliminating price, how do they sell non graded diamonds. By the way this ring is a good price for Tiffany. $18,000.

John Pollack, you are so refreshing. You shine.

Annette

Annette,
I hope you didn't see this as me personally asking for more. I am thankful John shared the findings of their ongoing CBI survey. BUT, that doesn't mean that the survey was designed to answer the questions posed in this thread. He was kind enough to share what they found, and we are thankful for that. Myself and others are simply stating that in order for the questions of this thread to be answered fully, a more controlled study would need to be completed. We have offered some advice on how such a study might be structured.

I am not trying to make the vendors of PS compete. Not at all. Rather, such a study could be a collective effort of all the PS vendors of superideals. If they would work together to show in a more scientific study that consumers prefer superideals over regular AGS 000, they would all have a much stronger marketing point. If the science isn't yet able to quantify the differences with objective metrics, perhaps consumers eyes and opinions would show a trend towards the superideal in such a study.

P,
That would be like the collusion in the tobacco industry with companies putting out studies that say smoking is not harmful

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I think bringing Tiffany, Cartier and Graff into the discussion highlights the fact that not every seller who focuses on cut uses the same techniques for selection. Or the manner in which a seller satisfies their diamond clients
Another huge factor is that a loose diamond will never satisfy the recipient- it needs to be set.
It's not possible to overstate the importance of setting on how a diamond performs in real life.
Then we have the overall buying experience- I've been to Tiffany's flagship store- it's really nice.
Although some people scoff at the prices- others ( many others) feel that the buying experience is worth the premium.

About bringing "competition to Pricescope".
I strongly believe consumers are better served with a broader discussion
The alternative is to simply continue what we see now- people recommending stones based on research which is promotional, but it's being touted as scientific.

 

[Medical]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi,


You have been given the results of an internal survey by CBI, and now you want more, and you want our very own vendors to test their own diamonds against each other. Why would anyone agree to this? We don't need the height of competition to reach the shores of Pricescope.

I do have a question that I have been dying to ask. The very high end jewelers,: tiffany, Cartier. Graff, HW, et al, do not have a super ideal brand. They do an internal evaluation of their stones and I I have never heard of anyone saying there stones were anything, but, beautiful. They don't seem to care about the Categories we are discussing, for them its enough to say its from Cartier, so it must be beautiful.

There is a Tiffany ring on Diamond Bistro or Loupe Troupe that has a grading report from Tiffany. I cannot read it, except it does say excellent, excellent, excellent and give the angles which is not clear on my computer. The ctw is 1.45 vs1, I think H color. We all know the price of these jewelers is out of this world, but eliminating price, how do they sell non graded diamonds. By the way this ring is a good price for Tiffany. $18,000.

John Pollack, you are so refreshing. You shine.

Annette

Annette,
I hope you didn't see this as me personally asking for more. I am thankful John shared the findings of their ongoing CBI survey. BUT, that doesn't mean that the survey was designed to answer the questions posed in this thread. He was kind enough to share what they found, and we are thankful for that. Myself and others are simply stating that in order for the questions of this thread to be answered fully, a more controlled study would need to be completed. We have offered some advice on how such a study might be structured.

I am not trying to make the vendors of PS compete. Not at all. Rather, such a study could be a collective effort of all the PS vendors of superideals. If they would work together to show in a more scientific study that consumers prefer superideals over regular AGS 000, they would all have a much stronger marketing point. If the science isn't yet able to quantify the differences with objective metrics, perhaps consumers eyes and opinions would show a trend towards the superideal in such a study.

P,
That would be like the collusion in the tobacco industry with companies putting out studies that say smoking is not harmful

Best. Analogy. Ever. Was debating about going there hahaha.

 

[JoshuaNiamehr]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

+1 for this thread.

There are some physical measurement devices out there that are able to quantify light symmetry and other metrics, do you think they are part of the future of quantification of performance nuances?

Hi Josh,

It depends on what technology you're talking about. I have worked intimately with just about every technology out there from ASET, Bscope, Isee2, Sarine, sophisticated versions of IdealScope, Octonus Raytrace, OGI ray trace, etc. as well as correlating those results with real world observation. All of them have their strengths and all of them also have their limitations. We take the approach of "test all things, hold fast to that which is good". Technologies are great for communicating strengths and weakness of certain products but it is important that consumers know the limitations of them as well.

Regards,
Rhino

Hi Rhino,

Lets use the Sarine Light as an example - it is calibrated to measure optical performance and light symmetry. I believe its the only device that actually measures light symmetry physically.

Joshua