Superbcert won''t send stones to Rockdoc for appraisal?

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 5/21/2003 9:18:25 AM harry wrote:
in response to Optimized and anyone else who is wondering:

Superbcert's stones are welcome by Rockdoc. it is Superbcert who won't send them.

there is no "leap" to conclusions.

Rockdoc is the only appraiser who has a brilliance scope machine.
Every other vendor who regularly posts here is willing to send his diamonds to Rockdoc.
Vendors who inflate their brilliance scope reports is clearly an issue and have been discussed several times in this forum.
Superbcert has chosen to provide no explanation.

Is it such a "leap" to wonder if Superbcert's brilliance scope reports are inflated?----------------

Harry.....to be fair, you've publicly noted here that it's "interesting" that Barry hasn't answered any queries here, but you yourself haven't answered the one I asked either.

Are you asking Barry to send this diamond to Rockdoc without any payment up front?

As an aside, it is really irrelevant that every other vendor is willing to send diamonds to Rockdoc....just because everyone else does it doesn't obligate Barry to do so. I understand you're trying to get what you want....which you're entitled to as a customer....but it's my opinion that you're going about it the wrong way. Asking Barry in a public forum "If I say I don't care about strain, will you then send the diamond to Rockdoc?" is unfair. If he answers to justify his position, he loses for slugging in a public forum, and if he doesn't answer, he loses because he's being unresponsive.

I honestly can't understand why this is so difficult to resolve. As I see it, if Barry is unwilling to ship to Rockdoc AFTER you've paid for the stone, you have two options. You can decide to go with another vendor, or you can negotiate terms that are conducive to YOU sending the stone to Rockdoc. Barry could ship it to you, you can ship it to Rockdoc, and Rockdoc can ship it back to you. You can request that Barry pay for the extra leg of shipping charges (because he won't ship it directly), and you can ask him to agree to an extended return period to cover the extra few days that this process would entail.

You can have what you want, but I think you are fighting a losing battle in trying to push Barry into a position he's seemingly unwilling to be in.

 

[harry]

----------------
On 5/21/2003 9:30:37 AM AGBF wrote:

On 5/21/2003 9:18:25 AM harry wrote:


"Rockdoc is the only appraiser who has a brilliance scope machine.


Vendors who inflate their brilliance scope reports is clearly an issue and have been discussed several times in this forum.

Superbcert has chosen to provide no explanation.


Is it such a "leap" to wonder if Superbcert's brilliance scope reports are inflated?"

________________________________________________________

In my opinion, yes. It is such a leap. Barry would be shocked to hear me saying this since he and I do not always agree, but I think you are leaping to conclusions with no evidence at all.

As has been said here above, any consumer can send his stone to rockdoc after investing in it. If he does not like the Brilliancescope report rockdoc issues he can return it to Barry during the guarantee period.

I, for one, have never sent a stone for appraisal *prior* to purchasing it. I *did* make sure I could return it if I had it checked out and didn't like what I found, however!!!

It is nice that some vendors offer this extra service of sending out stones before they are purchased, but I see nothing sinister in not wanting to do that. I do not believe any of my local jewelers send out stones for appraisal that a consumer has not already bought.

----------------

but barry recommended on many occasions in this forum that a consumer should have the vendor send the stone to an appraiser _before_ purchasing. he has also said he's willing to do so.

 

[harry]

----------------
On 5/21/2003 9:50:34 AM aljdewey wrote:

----------------
On 5/21/2003 9:18:25 AM harry wrote:


in response to Optimized and anyone else who is wondering:

Superbcert's stones are welcome by Rockdoc. it is Superbcert who won't send them.

there is no "leap" to conclusions.

Rockdoc is the only appraiser who has a brilliance scope machine.
Every other vendor who regularly posts here is willing to send his diamonds to Rockdoc.
Vendors who inflate their brilliance scope reports is clearly an issue and have been discussed several times in this forum.
Superbcert has chosen to provide no explanation.

Is it such a "leap" to wonder if Superbcert's brilliance scope reports are inflated?----------------

Harry.....to be fair, you've publicly noted here that it's "interesting" that Barry hasn't answered any queries here, but you yourself haven't answered the one I asked either.

Are you asking Barry to send this diamond to Rockdoc without any payment up front?

As an aside, it is really irrelevant that every other vendor is willing to send diamonds to Rockdoc....just because everyone else does it doesn't obligate Barry to do so. I understand you're trying to get what you want....which you're entitled to as a customer....but it's my opinion that you're going about it the wrong way. Asking Barry in a public forum "If I say I don't care about strain, will you then send the diamond to Rockdoc?" is unfair. If he answers to justify his position, he loses for slugging in a public forum, and if he doesn't answer, he loses because he's being unresponsive.

I honestly can't understand why this is so difficult to resolve. As I see it, if Barry is unwilling to ship to Rockdoc AFTER you've paid for the stone, you have two options. You can decide to go with another vendor, or you can negotiate terms that are conducive to YOU sending the stone to Rockdoc. Barry could ship it to you, you can ship it to Rockdoc, and Rockdoc can ship it back to you. You can request that Barry pay for the extra leg of shipping charges (because he won't ship it directly), and you can ask him to agree to an extended return period to cover the extra few days that this process would entail.

You can have what you want, but I think you are fighting a losing battle in trying to push Barry into a position he's seemingly unwilling to be in.
----------------

hi aljdewey, to answer your question, barry has recommended on this forum on many occasions to have the vendor send stones to an appraiser before paying for it. he is also will to do that himself with other appraisers, just not Rockdoc to whom he will not send stones under any circumstances.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 5/21/2003 10:10:38 AM harry wrote:

hi aljdewey, to answer your question, barry has recommended on this forum on many occasions to have the vendor send stones to an appraiser before paying for it. he is also will to do that himself with other appraisers, just not Rockdoc to whom he will not send stones under any circumstances.

----------------

Actually, Harry, you still didn't answer my question. I'll ask a third time: are you trying to pressure Barry into sending to Rockdoc PRIOR to purchase? It's a very simple question....yes or no will suffice.

As you note, Barry has recommended a customer sending a stone to an appraiser PRIOR to purchase, and he is willing to do so with other appraisers. You have a right to ask for Rockdoc as a customer, and if Barry's uncomfortable with Rockdoc, he has a right to say no. And you, from there, have a right to 1) pick another appraiser, 2) pick another vendor, or 3) pay for the stone prior to appraisal with the provisio that it can be returned for full refund if it doesn't meet your satisfaction and keep both vendor and appraiser.

I am getting the feeling that the point of this thread is to force Barry into shipping to Rockdoc prior to purchase. Again, I think this is the wrong way to go about it. Just my opinion.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 5/21/2003 10:10:38 AM harry wrote:

Is it such a leap to wonder if Superbcert's brilliance scope reports are inflated

----------------

Yes, personally, I do believe it is an unreasonable leap. You've garnered a great deal of information from this thread suggesting a discord in the relationship between Superbcert and Rockdoc.

It seems pretty evident to me that the poor relationship between them is the reason for Barry's refusal.....and to suggest that his reports are "fudged" is a HUGE leap given his excellent reputation for quality merchandise. That borders on slanderous. Just because someone refuses to use ONE appraiser doesn't mean he's cheating the system.

 

[harry]

----------------
On 5/21/2003 10:21:35 AM aljdewey wrote:

----------------
On 5/21/2003 10:10:38 AM harry wrote:

hi aljdewey, to answer your question, barry has recommended on this forum on many occasions to have the vendor send stones to an appraiser before paying for it. he is also will to do that himself with other appraisers, just not Rockdoc to whom he will not send stones under any circumstances.

----------------

Actually, Harry, you still didn't answer my question. I'll ask a third time: are you trying to pressure Barry into sending to Rockdoc PRIOR to purchase? It's a very simple question....yes or no will suffice.

As you note, Barry has recommended a customer sending a stone to an appraiser PRIOR to purchase, and he is willing to do so with other appraisers. You have a right to ask for Rockdoc as a customer, and if Barry's uncomfortable with Rockdoc, he has a right to say no. And you, from there, have a right to 1) pick another appraiser, 2) pick another vendor, or 3) pay for the stone prior to appraisal with the provisio that it can be returned for full refund if it doesn't meet your satisfaction and keep both vendor and appraiser.

I am getting the feeling that the point of this thread is to force Barry into shipping to Rockdoc prior to purchase. Again, I think this is the wrong way to go about it. Just my opinion.
----------------

i find it amazing how easily people take responses as personal attacks and lose sight of the points people are making. i'll say it again. barry has recommended on several occasions to have stones sent to appraisers before purchasing. he has sells the fact that he would send stones to appraisers before purchasing. what is wrong with me or any consumer asking him to send a stone to rockdoc for appraisal before purchasing? (especially since rockdoc is the only appraiser with a brilliancescope)

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 5/21/2003 10:34

2 AM harry wrote:

i find it amazing how easily people take responses as personal attacks and lose sight of the points people are making. i'll say it again. barry has recommended on several occasions to have stones sent to appraisers before purchasing. he has sells the fact that he would send stones to appraisers before purchasing. what is wrong with me or any consumer asking him to send a stone to rockdoc for appraisal before purchasing? (especially since rockdoc is the only appraiser with a brilliancescope)

----------------

Harry, I'm truly sorry you feel that way. It's not a personal attack at all.....I simply noted that I've asked you the same question three times, and you've not answered it (still). If you truly believe that's a personal attack, then I can't see how you feel justified in casting aspersions on the integrity of Barry's merchandise or reporting in a public forum. Implying that someone's business ethics are questionable because he refuses one request is far more of a personal attack in my opinion.

I've not lost sight of your point......I'll even repeat it so you know I "got it". Your point is Barry recommends an appraisal prior to purchase and says he'll ship to an appraiser prior to purchase. Did I get that exactly right? But that advice from Barry in no way obligates him to send to an appraiser he is painfully at odds with.

I'll say it again.....there is absolutely nothing wrong with you (or anyone) asking Barry to send a stone to Rockdoc for appraisal before purchasing.......and if he feels uncomfortable with that particular individual prior to purchase, he has the right to deny your request.

Those are his terms, and if you're unhappy with them, you can choose to go with another vendor. If he's repeatedly denied this request to date, I really don't believe that pressuring through this forum is going to change that. You're welcome, of course, to have at it if you think it will be effective, but somehow I think Barry won't change his position on this.

 

[Hest88]

Harry, as someone who witnessed some of those discussions we've alluded to, I'll say that, as a consumer, I have no misgivings about the quality of Barry's stones or the quality of Rocdoc's appraisals.

I know what you're saying, but I just don't think it would be prudent to demand Barry send his stones to someone he doesn't want them sent to. Yes, you are the consumer, but he still has a right to determine how his stones are handled before purchase.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 5/21/2003 10:51:25 AM Hest88 wrote:
Harry, as someone who witnessed some of those discussions we've alluded to, I'll say that, as a consumer, I have no misgivings about the quality of Barry's stones or the quality of Rocdoc's appraisals.

I know what you're saying, but I just don't think it would be prudent to demand Barry send his stones to someone he doesn't want them sent to. Yes, you are the consumer, but he still has a right to determine how his stones are handled before purchase.
----------------

Amen.....exactly!

 

[Talonnav]

Has Barry actually come out and said, "I will not send diamonds to Rock Doc for XYZ reason?" Or did I miss something?

 

[fire&ice]

Harry - We get it - Barry won't ship to Rocdoc. So what, he has that right.

What are you trying to accomplish? If you want a superbcert stone from Barry & you want Rocdoc to examine such stone, buy it & ship it to Rocdoc yourself. Return it if it's not right. PERIOD.

The facts are simple. Your solution is simple. Accept it or move on.

Quite frankly, I don't care why Barry won't ship to Rocdoc. Three pages on this?

Leonid, maybe it's time for this to go to "hangout". For the time being, I think your avatar should remain as is.

 

[aljdewey]

P.S. Several people have suggested having the stone sent to GemEx....who would be able to independently verify the Brilliancescope results, which appear to be your primary concern (via "Rockdoc is the only appraiser w/B/scope).

While Barry may not answer that question in this thread to a public forum, you haven't mentioned, Harry, if you've asked Barry to send to Gemex and what his response was? It seems that would be the easiest way to allay any concerns you might have.

 

[DiehardSearcher]

I would not give Barry your money if he does not satisfy your requests. Your wishes are important; if you have a personal desire to have your stone appraised by rockdoc, you as a consumer should have it so. If Barry has a personal problem with Bill, he should get over it and provide professional product and service to his clients.

I strive hard to provide my customers with professional service, as a customer I expect the same. Your business is important, there are TONS of diamonds to choose from, don't support business practices you don't approve of.

Just my opinion.

 

[RockDoc]

I suppose I will attempt to clarify the issue here.

It lies in the fact that I will REJECT certain stones. My opinion here is that because there is no price difference between stones which do have strain and stones that don't... what's the big deal - THERE'S ALWAYS ANOTHER BUS, If the stone has strain that might potentially be detrimental, simply pick a stone that doesn't have strain.

This is where the position of the broker who doesn't own there stones like Jonathan, USCERTED, and many others have an advantage. They are not buying the stone generally speaking till its sold. The dealer/cutter who does own his stones has to buy parcels of goods, which include stones with stress.
Rough dealers tell their cutter customers.... " You're the cutter, you deal with it." So the question at hand is do rough dealers reduce the price of such diamonds ( I believe a well experienced rough diamond buyer can negotiate a discount based on the percentage of strained stones in their parcels, and if not - they should be.)

It is common logic that if one stone does have significant strain and another doesn't the stone with strain SHOULD SELL for less.

So briefly speaking, those dealers who have bought these stones ( stones with strain) aren't going to throw them in the trash, are they? NOPE! If they can sell them to consumers who don't have them checked, then who's fault is that? This is where the broker who can pick non strain stones to sell has a distinct advantage for consumers that are concerned about the issue. To simply say it is a non-issue is misleading. I have repeatedly said, if it isn't an issue, then guarantee if a stone does break that they will replace it. Of course no one is willing to do that. But this puzzles me, because if strain is a non-issue, then why don't they back it up with their wallets.

The factual issue is that strain does affect the cutting process. The industry takes the position that if the stone survives the cutting process,then there isn't a problem with it. However, let's say that a stone does get chipped or damaged, and it has to be recut. Then the issue becomes a serious problem if the stone would break or explode in the repair process.

As a real life situation concerning this..here is a recent report of the happening of strain.

A friend of mine has a stone he bought in phila, about ten years ago. It became loose in the mounting. He wanted it re-appraised so he could change from State Farm to Chubb. The stone is round and weighs 1.50 carats. It's currently insured for $ 10,800 based on a "stupid and incompetent appraisal".

In order to test the stone, which was loose in the mounting, I wanted to have the stone unset. The setter looked at it and said it would be better not to pull it out due to the risk of the stone breaking. I looked at it closer and saw that there was significant red strain surrounding the inclusions at the edge of the diamond.

The client, on his own, called State Farm and reported a claim. It is fairly obvious that sooner or later this diamond is going to have a problem. So I met him at the replaceent company provided by State Farm.

My position is that the stone has a value as salvage currently, even though it hasn't yet broken. My advice was for them to replace the stone, and take the old stone, since it would be salable as salvage. State Farm could not see the wisdom in this, taking the position that there was no basis for a claim, because the stone hadn't yet broken. They preferred to wait till the diamond broke ( or fell out of the mounting) before paying a claim. BUT here's the real situation. They said that because the stone had strain, they would deny such a claim for a pre-existing condition.

If they got a competent gemologist that works for them, to say the stone had a pre-existing condition, they wouldn't pay the claim, whether they were told about it in the appraisal report or not.

I disagree to some extent with this position. If the appraisal report discloses the strain, and the underwriter accepts it for coverage, I think most insurance companies would be hard pressed to make the pre-existing condition stick, particularly if the stone was worn for a reasonable amount of time before anything happened.

But the insteresting situation for consumers, is that they COULD be in an undesireable position, if the stone they are buying DOES have severe strain or strain that is determined to be a contributing cause for breakage or the reason a stone couldn't be recut if it was chipped or damaged.


In summation, its easy to read between the lines. Sellers who don't want stones to be sent here, is done so the "excuses" can still get sold.
All the sellers know I do very advanced and very complete testing of any diamond sent in. My position is - if you don't want the stone sent, simply pick a different one. This is what they object to having to do. To me and consumers, this shouldn't be a problem, but when an appraiser rejects a stone from being sold, it creates a problem.

I will not be manipulated by such practices in protecting consumers. I haved been accused of favoring certain sellers or diamonds. When a stone is really exceptional, I have no problem saying so, and as such, if the opposite is true, I won't cover that up either. Because of this, the accusations that I support certain sellers is patently incorrect and just a method of attempting to keep stones from coming here. I have been accused of promoting Superb Cert...if this were so, then I wouldn't be "rejecting" any of their stones - would I?

It is really ashame that other professionals, choose to attack and mislead consumers.

For consumers: Pick whatever appraiser you really feel good about. I would suggest calling several appraisers, and asking questions about the equipment they have, the testing they do. Then make your choice of consultant that will serve and protect you in the fashion that you want. If the seller won't send the stone, simply find a seller who will. Ask the seller, if you don't buy the first stone, will they be upset about sending in a second stone.

Rockdoc

 

[RockDoc]

----------------
On 5/18/2003 4:16:13 AM Cut Nut wrote:

I think that was a complinent AGBF?

The polarisation efects of strain are supposed to mean you need to cut a diamond differently, this was one of Roc's first areas of discussion on the topic.
He got the story from a certain diamond cutter who was a grammar teacher in a previous life.
That story was given support by Dr Reinitz, a Geochemist.
They were all blown out of the water by Sergey, the mathemeatician physicst - the deviation in light caused by polarisation (a result of stress) would mean a facet might need to change by 0.001 or 0.00001 degree (I can not remember exactly) which is so small that no one could ever compensate for it.

Then Roc went on and on about damage, which I believe he did to justify all the money he had already made out of testing for it.
Anyone know what a furphy is?

Gary

How do you know what I discussed with Richard von Sternberg of Eightstar, or Dr. Reinitz?

Leonid..... You have certainly ( and properly ) asked that people not attack others on the forum, but this is about the 50th time, that Gary has made untrue and misleading remarks, about my professional opinions and conclusions.
Most of his comments are inaccurate and untrue. So since you have emailed me with comment about my posts, I would appreciate if you would discuss this ongoing and continuing attacks on my professional positions.

Rockdoc


----------------

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You produce hearsay from a setter of all people as your basis of research Roc????

The old Gemkey articles were factual with regards VonSternberg etc.
Does anyone have access to them?
There may be old Diamondtalk records also.

 

[RockDoc]

Gary

No - I am not using the opinion of a setter for research. Read the post again.

He thought the inclusions were troublesome, and when I took the stone back to the lab.... voila lots of strain in that area of the stone.

Rockdoc

 

[pricescope]

just in case: everybody please refrain from personal atacks

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thankyou for the clarification Roc - but you agree about your change of opinion over time as to why strain is now a damage issue, where as before it was a distortion of light issue?

Leonid I am attempting to attacking behaviour. I regards Rockdoc as an expert in his feild.
But as an expert in your feild Roc, you ought behave in a manner based on substaniated facts, not your opinion - especially when it has the spurious background - and is related to a charged for service.
If you are of that opinion, and you make money from that opinion (and others do not offer the service because they believe it is a waste of consumers money) then it is up to YOU to justify the fear of God that you put into consumers.

I would prefer you did not bring Robert into the discussion - he was not himself at the time, and also made no attempt to substaniate his 'opinion'.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

----------
just in case: everybody please refrain from personal atacks
----------

Leonid, you're ugly and have big ears.

-Anonymous

 

[lawmax]

----------------
On 5/21/2003 9:34

1 PM Richard Sherwood wrote:

----------
just in case: everybody please refrain from personal atacks
----------

Leonid, you're ugly and have big ears.

-Anonymous


----------------

LOL!!!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hey I like you guys - you have a great sense of perspective

 

[optimized]

----------
just in case: everybody please refrain from personal atacks
----------

Leonid, you're ugly and have big ears.

-Anonymous

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

AND your mom dresses you funny....

-Tim

 

[optimized]

Rockdoc,

I don't blame you for responding here since the topic is obviously quite relevant to you, but I hope the thread can remain amicable while this topic continues to be discussed. I'd like to say up front that my impression of you in general is that of a knowledgeable and respected appraiser. I don't pretend to possess your years of experience, but over the course of my learning about diamonds I've seen the issue of strain discussed many times and have admittedly drawn some of my own conclusions about its significance. I preface this post with those thoughts because I'm afraid I'm about to write some things that run counter to what you've written, and I want you to know that I mean no ill-will with what I say, and that I welcome the opportunity to learn more about the topic if you find my statements to be logically flawed...

"It lies in the fact that I will REJECT certain stones. My opinion here is that because there is no price difference between stones which do have strain and stones that don't... what's the big deal - THERE'S ALWAYS ANOTHER BUS, If the stone has strain that might potentially be detrimental, simply pick a stone that doesn't have strain."

In that opening paragraph I think you've struck on a few of the things that may cause some dealers to question your stand on the issue, and I'd like to explain why. As I look at the paragraph, I think perhaps a more complete characterization (from a dealer's point of view) might be to say: "It lies with the fact that I will REJECT certain stones that, for my own reasons, I have decided should be warned against despite a general lack of consensus within the industry that the stones should be avoided."

You go further by stating "...what's the big deal - THERE'S ALWAYS ANOTHER BUS," but completely disregard the fact that for every stone you counsel a customer to reject, you personally are making money while the dealer is forced to pay, through shipping expenses, lost time and effort, and money tied up in stock that otherwise might be sold. This may well be quite a big deal to the dealer who is forced to shoulder those costs. That bus you speak of is costing the dealer money to run, as it were. For you to warn against a diamond because there is "strain that might be detrimental" without having more solid evidence that this strain is in fact detrimental in a finished diamond, you cost everybody BUT YOURSELF time and money. In fact, logic would dictate that you make MORE money for every rejected stone, as a new stone for you to examine is liable to follow in its wake. I hasten to add that I don't mean this to be any sort of accusation, but just as a simple point of fact that perhaps you lose sight of occasionally.

Now, I don't know enough about any underlying motivations that may or may not come into play here that compels me to make any blanket judgments about the reasons behind your stand, but I do know that taking such a stand may place you in an awkward position in relation to others within the industry. By warning consumers about the shadowy dangers inherent in owning strained diamonds without a body of evidence to back up your opinion you place yourself in a position in which it's reasonable to expect challenges to your conclusions. You're in a position to condemn dealers' stock while the dealer may be left wondering why their merchandise is being maligned for a reason that isn't accepted by the industry as cause for concern. IMO, you, as a respected appraiser who takes strain into account when making your recommendations, have an obligation to have better reasons than "there's always another bus" and "strain that might be detrimental" when disqualifying diamonds from reputable dealers who are sending diamonds to you in good faith.

"It is common logic that if one stone does have significant strain and another doesn't the stone with strain SHOULD SELL for less. "

Although one counterpoint to that statement might be, "UNLESS strain has no practical impact on the performance or durability of the stone and isn't accepted within the industry as a relevant factor in grading." From what I've read previously, you have stated that there is a practical reason to avoid strained stones, i.e. the stone will have a greater chance of breakage. But, if there is no practical impact of strain it becomes a question of discounting a strained diamond simply because it has strain, which is IMO a far more difficult position to defend unless the industry as a whole is in consensus, which isn't currently the case.

"To simply say it is a non-issue is misleading. I have repeatedly said, if it isn't an issue, then guarantee if a stone does break that they will replace it. Of course no one is willing to do that. But this puzzles me, because if strain is a non-issue, then why don't they back it up with their wallets."

This statement surprised me a bit since it seems so illogical and removed from the realities of the market. To my knowledge, except for the "bonded diamond" shenanigans of Mr. Cuellar and a few others, NO dealer will replace a broken diamond free of charge REGARDLESS of the circumstances of the breakage. In other words, if a dealer won't pay for a broken "unstrained" stone, why would they pay for a broken "strained" one? To flip your statement another way, if your assertion is that strained diamonds are more likely to suffer breakage, it stands to reason that an unstrained diamond will be more durable. If you disqualify one diamond because it has strain and recommend a second diamond without strain, should you be expected to replace the second diamond if it breaks anyway? After all, you're indirectly claiming an unstrained diamond will be more durable, so where is YOUR wallet when a customer of yours with an unstrained diamond suffers breakage? Seems a bit of a red herring there, doesn't it?

"The factual issue is that strain does affect the cutting process. The industry takes the position that if the stone survives the cutting process,then there isn't a problem with it. However, let's say that a stone does get chipped or damaged, and it has to be recut. Then the issue becomes a serious problem if the stone would break or explode in the repair process."

So you're warning folks against buying strained diamonds on the off-chance that the diamond is damaged later on and needs to be recut, thus reintroducing the extraordinary pressures brought on by cutting and polishing? If that's the extent of the risk of breakage, the arguments for warning people against strained diamonds seem to get thinner yet.

"In summation, its easy to read between the lines. Sellers who don't want stones to be sent here, is done so the "excuses" can still get sold."

But, you still aren't acknowledging the fact that there is a vast contingent of people (dealers, appraisers and assorted gemologists) who don't consider strained diamonds to be "excuses" or otherwise less desirable than an unstrained diamond. To these people you may well be seen as taking a stubborn position with no valid reasoning, and are thus disqualifying a portion of the diamond market for no good reason. Yes, there is obviously a physical difference between a strained and an unstrained diamond, but the relevance of that difference is what's at issue. You have obviously drawn a conclusion as to the significance of strain, but you seem loathe to acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of the industry has thus far NOT reached the same conclusion, as evidenced by the lack of pricing differentiation within the market between strained and unstrained diamonds.

"To me and consumers, this shouldn't be a problem, but when an appraiser rejects a stone from being sold, it creates a problem."

Granted, a dealer would rather his or her stock not be rejected at all, but I would suggest that the reason this issue has come to the fore with you and Barry may have much more to do with the perception that the stone is being rejected for no valid reason, and that your rejection is literally costing everybody else but you money.

In conclusion, in no way am I trying to say that you're wrong or are baldly acting in an inappropriate way, but I do suggest that your statements seem to lack empirical evidence in support of your position concerning the practical impact of strain on the worthiness of diamonds for sale. As I've said before, I think it's regrettable that this situation between you and Barry occurred at all, but I can see how some dealers might eventually reach a point where they would rather not send what they consider to be perfectly acceptable diamonds to you when they know there's a chance you will advise the consumer against buying the diamond based solely on a shaky premise. I understand the value of independent appraisals and believe a consumer should have the option to use an appraiser of their choice, but at the same time I can see how some might question your reasoning on this particular issue and be reluctant to subject their stock to your methodology. Hopefully this will all be settled someday with a true consensus about the significance of strain in diamonds.

My $0.02, smeared out quite a bit.

-Tim

 

[pricescope]

----------------
On 5/21/2003 11:16:41 PM optimized wrote:


----------
just in case: everybody please refrain from personal atacks
----------

Leonid, you're ugly and have big ears.

-Anonymous

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

AND your mom dresses you funny....

-Tim


----------------

I know but I don't care!

 

[pyramid]

Optimized very good points.

I am wondering if this type of situation occurs in other professional fields. What came to my mind was in medical fields and University research. I am sure specialists must have disagreeing opinions and I know nothing about this but do they discuss what they believe with patients. I know this is something that may be governed by laws and ethics as people are ofcourse way more important than diamonds.

I know this is a public forum but maybe the industry is correct, maybe Debeers does believe a bit about what Rockdoc says but are not going to publish or admit to this as there is no evidence. I know as a consumer I would want to know everything and now I have read this would definitely get a diamond checked for strain. I wonder though it this should not have come out and even Rockdoc should not have discussed it with his customers until there is scientific proof. I know experts are going to debate matters but maybe this is what appraisers should debate on a private forum between themselves.

I am sure large companies like for instance car manufacture must know a few things about their products which are not made public knowledge.

These are just my thoughts and maybe I am way off point but if the industry (meaning the dealers) is harmed by something which cannot be proved then maybe it is a non issue which should not be gone into. In some instances maybe ignorance is bliss. For instance how many people own diamonds from a hundred years back that are still intact.

Another question off topic I know but if diamonds have been around for thousands of years where are all the diamonds now that are say 900 years old. I only ever hear people on these forums speaking about their grandmothers ring and it never seems to go any further back. I know the famous large diamonds are steeped in history but do any of the appraisers here ever appraise a diamond which the owner says has gone back generations in their family, say 900 to 1500 years. Do these diamonds exist today?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

-----------
but I do suggest that your statements seem to lack empirical evidence
in support of your position concerning the practical impact of strain
on the worthiness of diamonds for sale.
-----------

Excellent analysis of the situation Tim.

-----------
I wonder though it this should not have come out and even Rockdoc
should not have discussed it with his customers until there is
scientific proof.
-----------

My opinion exactly, Pyramid.

-----------
I know experts are going to debate matters but maybe this is what
appraisers should debate on a private forum between themselves.
-----------

I believe that would have been a much more prudent course of action for RockDoc to have taken, but now that he has introduced this "fear factor" publicly, and actually caused economic loss to vendors, as well as causing consumers to pass on purchases which may have been perfectly valid, it is too late for that.

I have heard the thread on DiamondTalk for example mentioned numerous times by consumers who have done a search on strain. That thread is a very prominent red flag hung high right in the middle of the internet ocean, for all to see. There no longer is any possibility of this issue remaining "private".

 

[pyramid]

So if this strain issue come to the forefront like it seems to be doing what will happen. Will all SI1, SI2 stones see a drop in sales, will all stones will surface and internal graining be out of the running because they will show strain. In otherwords all graining and feathers will be a no no. What about crystals in VS1, VS2 stones they may have strain around them. What will be left Flawless and Internally Flawless stones that most people cannot afford. I have even read that Flawless stones can have strain.

What is the percentage of SI1 stones inspected which have been found to have strain, anyone know?

 

[fire&ice]

Opt, good summary - my sentiments exactly.

Strain is a non-issue. Just think about the millions of people who have diamonds. I shouldn't walk down the street where buses travel because I may get hit by one especially since another one may come along at any time.

 

[harry]

wanted to clear up a few things

my purpose of starting this thread is to get some answers as to why superbcert won't send stones to rockdoc. demands are not made with ? marks. still no definite answers, but at least superbcert has been exposed on this point, and other consumers can decide for themselves whether or not they want to waste any time with superbcert, like i did.

i agree with all who say that the consumer can simply choose another vendor. i have been doing exactly that.

aljdeway, no point in having us go back and forth arguing with each other. i am confident enough in my responses to you that other readers will understand what i'm saying.