Same stone to 4 labs - Is it a wash?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

There does not seem to be much point David. You criticise the survey. You suggest an improvement and additional data.
That information would be biased because of the way you have colected it - there is no random selection as we were careful to provide in the original survey.

Lets run a survey by asking everyone to report.

Here is a quote from another topic:
One researcher come to good Italian restaurant and ask: Who is like Italian cuisine?
Him scientific conclusion : 91% of world population love Italian cuisine.
Him competitor come to good Chinese restaurant and ask: Who is like Chinese cuisine?
Competitor scientific conclusion : 95 % of world population like Chinese cuisine.

Who is right?

Sergey Sivovolenko CEO OctoNus

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Thanks for answering Garry.
I'm not critisizing the intention of the study- the results are quite interesting for sure. It seems to me, that if one conducts a study, the discussion of that study is a valuable aspect of the research.
I understand the point of your response- with no control, a study is worthless.

Regarding the selection of the diamonds used in the study:

In total 17 round brilliant cut diamonds were selected for the survey, but one was inadvertently sent to GIA-GTL twice (and received different clarity grades). They ranged from 0.6 -1.25 carat, E – J color and VVS2 – SI2 clarity ranges. The sizes and qualities were chosen to represent frequently traded range of diamonds. The vendors were asked not to deliberately select stones that they considered to be border line examples or stones that in their opinion had been "missgraded". See Appendixes I - V for all diamonds' details.

DirtCheapDiamonds.com selected 6 diamonds (5 with AGSL and 1 with GIA-GTL reports) and submitted them to GIA and EGL USA
EngagementRingsDirect.com selected 4 diamonds with GIA-GTL reports and submitted them to AGSL and EGL USA
Whiteflash.com selected 7 diamonds with GIA-GTL reports and submitted them to AGSL and EGL USA.
All diamonds and all 3 grading reports were then shipped to David Atlas, GG, NGJA, ASG Accredited Gem Appraisers, Philadelphia, PA for additional professional evaluation and to review the grading results.

The survey is based on the word of established diamond vendors, and a gemolgist. The term used in the study is selected. I'm not saying the selection was not done fairly, or that this method is not workable, it is..... just that ultimately, vendors selected the diamonds to include in the study.

As a single shape, round is likely the most popular- but if you conisider Fancy Shapes in total- there's likely more fancy shape diamonds over 1 carat sold. This makes the inclusion of Fancy Shapes important.
The diamond I submitted is an Asscher- one of the hottest shapes out there today- don't you think including such a shape would enrich the study?

If you were interested in expanding the study, I'd make the following offer:
I'll submit ( and pay for ) any 5 of our diamonds ( 1.00-5.00cts) to the appropriate labs so they conform with the study. Garry- YOU can select the stones.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is a generous offer David.

However by making the offer publicly the experiment won’t be clean, since we know that all the labs are lurking and reading our forum. So they will be prepared.
We went to great lengths to ensure that was not the case last time.
We spent a lot of time and effort behind the scenes to do that survey. Time and effort that is not obvious at face value.

But right now we do not have the time for this project as we are working on a rather large development that we hope will come off soon.

But FYI you might be surprised at the prices we note that IGI Fancies are listed at.