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

[pyramid]

Which begs the question F&I. Is clarity a non-issue because you cannot see it with the naked eye. What about cut as all diamonds look sparkly - well most, is it just that teeny weeny percent more light return, and what about color should we just stick with what looks white instead of categorizing it? I know there is big bucks to be made between a D and a H but aren't they white diamonds when looking at someone's hand or your own hand?

I would like strain to be a non-issue but am keeping my mind open as I know Rockdoc and the other experts here know a lot more than I do.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 5/22/2003 9:53:25 AM pyramid wrote:

Which begs the question F&I. Is clarity a non-issue because you cannot see it with the naked eye. What about cut as all diamonds look sparkly - well most, is it just that teeny weeny percent more light return, and what about color should we just stick with what looks white instead of categorizing it? I know there is big bucks to be made between a D and a H but aren't they white diamonds when looking at someone's hand or your own hand?

I would like strain to be a non-issue but am keeping my mind open as I know Rockdoc and the other experts here know a lot more than I do.
----------------

Clarity, color, etc. are valid according to *any* diamond dealer, lab, consumer & insurance co. Strain is not.

Strain is a non-issue.

 

[trichrome]

BARRY! BARRY! BARRY! BARRY! BARRY!

 

[pyramid]

But just think. Is that just because the industry wants us to think this, including Debeers. Did someone say strained rough is cheaper than non-strained rough. I am not saying I agree with Rockdoc's stance just looking at it from both sides.

 

[pyramid]

As Optimized said each time a stone is rejected at the appraiser Rockdoc gets paid to appraise another. Not saying he is thinking that way. But each time a stone breaks because of strain (which cannot be proven they say), a diamond dealer gets to sell another one.

There are two sides to each argument.

 

[jlim]

I want to know how much time is left before the diamond turns into ash. I need carbon dating.

Just to throw in some humor into the whole thing.

 

[AGBF]

On 5/22/2003 11:16:47 AM pyramid wrote:

"each time a stone breaks because of strain (which cannot be proven they say), a diamond dealer gets to sell another one.

There are two sides to each argument."

This "strains" credibility, pyramid. At least if you are insinuating that a vendor sells a diamond with a strain problem, knowing it will break. To sell a diamond knowing it would break would take a great deal of mathematical ability, indeed!

Perhaps someone out there has such ability. My math skills (and physics skills) are not above the ordinary.

Are there any engineers here (what a question! There are *always* engineers on these threads!) who would like to lay odds on a vendor's being able to discern which diamond actually *will* break because of strain?

 

[AGBF]

Wait! I just thought of another (highly improbable, but possible) scenario: a vendor could stock *only* diamonds under strain, thereby ensuring that *if* strain is a factor in a diamond's longevity, at least some of the stones he sells will break.

Only one caveat: if a consumer buys a diamond from a vendor and it breaks, will that consumer go *back* to the same vendor for his *next* stone?

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 5/22/2003 11:29

2 AM AGBF wrote:

Wait! I just thought of another (highly improbable, but possible) scenario: a vendor could stock *only* diamonds under strain, thereby ensuring that *if* strain is a factor in a diamond's longevity, at least some of the stones he sells will break.

Only one caveat: if a consumer buys a diamond from a vendor and it breaks, will that consumer go *back* to the same vendor for his *next* stone?
----------------

Would that be the same business plan as the diamond dealer who hires someone to steal the stone from your house then sells the same one again & again?

This thread should be put out of it's misery.

 

[AGBF]

On 5/22/2003 11:58:39 AM fire&ice wrote:

"This thread should be put out of it's misery."


Spoilsport!!!

 

[homer_j]

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


Are there any engineers here (what a question! There are *always* engineers on these threads!) who would like to lay odds on a vendor's being able to discern which diamond actually *will* break because of strain?

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

I'm not an engineer, but I do play one at work. Ha!

I would think this could be easily tested for in a controlled laboratory environment. You could easily test a diamond for pressure, tension, torsion, etc.. Is this the type of strain we are talking about? If there are any graduate students in mineralogy or engineering, this sounds like a great thesis or doctoral dissertation. As a regular joe-nobody, my impression is that this is simply a healthy technical debate. Just to put this in perspective, there are points in science that constantly fight contemporary ideology.. For example, the earth being round, plate tectonics, evolution, etc... All a little bigger than diamond strain but i think it makes a good point.

As a consumer, I'd appreciate to hear all sides of the issue during the appraisal. All of you appraisers could very easily make a mention that it is a possibility and that's it. Just like very thin girdles. The insurance point is also a very good one. Wow, this is just too much for something that is a non-issue. What to do?

 

[Mara]

Just thought I'd chime in and say 'BOO' in order to make this post on this thread the lucky #100.

I haven't read the entire thread. 99 posts long..are you insane?

 

[Mara]

DARN!! Homer beat me to it!

 

[oldminer]

What a long thread on a nothing topic. You can make strain into a demon, but it is relatively unimportant for most people. Cutters are concerned with it as it has an effect on how to cut the rough. After a diamond has undergone the strain of heat, pressure and vibration in the cutting process, it is rarely subjected to more in being worn. I have seen many very old diamonds that were in great condition that had some apparent strain in them.

Think of the cablews on a suspension bridge. They have tremendous strain on them for many decades and do not break. They are very strong. Diamond is also very durable. Not in the manner of steel cable, but there are some comparisons one might make.

RockDoc is motivated to save consumers at all costs. He has not made a lot of friends wqith diamond dealers because of his position on this subject, but RockDoc is stubborn and true to his standards. We should respect him in this regard.

However, strain is truly a major issue only on rare occasions.
Sure, it has some effect on value. Every single detriment to value will be exploited by diamond dealers. That is how things are negotiated. What it means to the consumer or retail jeweler is far less important as little problems are created by strain..... "Buy some insurance and don't fret" would be my best suggestion.

 

[jlim]

I think most engineering students are educated only in stress/strain in metals and at the most ceramic. At least that's what I learn in college Bsc. & Msc in Engineering Mechanics. Never encounter an equation for calculating strain in a diamond.

Maybe someone can make up a Finite Element model of a diamond, introduce an internal strain and see how it propagate through fracture analysis.

But there are not too many solvers out there for this I suspect. Maybe Abaqus or a Phd dissertation custom written software. I know a guy who wrote a fracture analysis software back in college. He's working for Nasa now I think

Btw Mara, if you think this is long, you should probably head over to diamondtalk and read up on "Chewed up and spit out by ..." thread if you haven't.

 

[pqcollectibles]

----------------
On 5/22/2003 12:34:17 PM oldminer wrote:

Think of the cablews on a suspension bridge. They have tremendous strain on them for many decades and do not break. They are very strong. Diamond is also very durable. Not in the manner of steel cable, but there are some comparisons one might make.

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

Good analogy. One I think most of us can relate too.

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

RockDoc is motivated to save consumers at all costs. He has not made a lot of friends wqith diamond dealers because of his position on this subject, but RockDoc is stubborn and true to his standards. We should respect him in this regard.

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

Well put! We should all respect those in business who stick to their convictions in the service of their customers.

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

However, strain is truly a major issue only on rare occasions.
Sure, it has some effect on value. Every single detriment to value will be exploited by diamond dealers. That is how things are negotiated. What it means to the consumer or retail jeweler is far less important as little problems are created by strain....."Buy some insurance and don't fret" would be my best suggestion.

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

Now there's the point. While those in the biz negotiate a lower price to trade in "Strained" rough/finished gems, the customer pays the same price for comparable end products. We don't know which is "Strained" and which isn't. And, the diamonds are priced to us on a "similar carat weight, color, and clarity basis." And then we pay for insurance which covers theft and loss, and chipping, if we add that coverage, but may not pay for breakage due to pre-existing conditions.

How often is a "new" diamond offered that exhibits strain? I don't know? Evidently, older diamonds are traded that do show signs of fatigue/strain. As customers, our only safeguard is an independent appraiser who knows what to look for.

Mara, dear. You should have been following this daily. It's become quite interesting!

 

[RockDoc]

Clarification of my fees for stones with strain.

First off, I don't charge for work I don't do. Initially, I check a stone for strain. If the stone has strain, I do not do anymore work on it until I discuss the situation with the customer. The ultimate decision is the customer's. Some customers have elected to buy the stone anyway. Ok with me... my job is to inform and disclose, not make the purchasing decision.

In the case that a stone is going to be returned to the seller, because it has more strain than the customer might desire, my fee is $ 40.00 - so those who accuse me of getting rich with this are all wet. When a stone has strain, its a pain for me to go through the discussion, photographing the strain, and then sending the stone back. But I feel that I shouldn't spend the client's money for work that is not required if the customer doesn't want the stone because of the stress /strain.

Sellers are allowed to "puff" their merchandise in order to sell it. Appraisers are not. Why do people send stones here... the answer for financial advice, which I do provide. As an expert, I have a clear obligation to provide any and all information that would affect the purchasing decision an financial outcome from performing the testing.

A perfect comparison in Anderson in the Enron case. Anderson provided information that advised people in making a financial decision, and I think you all know what happened to Anderson. Appraisers do not have the luxury of being willfully blind or covering up, OR making light of a serious problem when such a condition has an affect on durability, beauty or the value of their purchase.

Another situation to consider is the that the heat, vibration and pressure in the cutting process can be controlled by the cutter. This is how stones with strain do survive the cutting process. IMPACT isn't something that is controlled by the person wearing the diamond. It just happens, and the consumer doesn't have control of the suddeness, force of impact or angle of impact.

The position that some take saying I've never seen this happen IMHO is not one that deserves a lot of credibility. I will grant you that damage or breakage of a diamond due to strain may be uncommon, but approaching the question from the opposite stance inferring that it doesn't or can't happen is not completely valid.

What is the benefit of a consumer paying the same price for a stone with strain, vs. one without it?

The general non issue opinion here leads me to think about the wood framing of a building ( usually a residence ). Some builders buy distored grain wood with knots and use that for the framing of a house. Others use clear, unknotted straight grain lumber. Still others use second grade material and then double up on the pieces used. Here in Florida, substandard quality framing was used for years. It was fine for years too, until Hurricane Andrew came along.Since then, we've had significant changes in our building codes. Here, previously... we didn't see damage due to this before justifies a reason to sell using the less than 'perfect' framing....

Your Gemologist certainly verified that he saw stones that he believed was due to strain. He is in a position working for an insurance company that provides examples which sellers and appraisers really don't get the opportunity to see and study.

Ultimately, the choice is the consumer's. But you can't make a legitimate and informed decision if the issue is swept under the rug, or covered up.

Rockdoc

 

[oldminer]

RockDoc;

Excellent clarification of your point of view. It makes good sense to follow your advice. It is very suited to the needs of consumers.......

 

[DiamondExpert]

Harry: On its face, it seems you have used this public forum to ask for an answer to a simple question - namely, why won't Barry send stones to RockDoc -but are apparently unable or unwilling to resolve the issue by picking up the phone, talking to Barry and asking him why! - surely, you could have done him this courtesy, and I'm sure he would have been happy to discuss the issue with you.

Your persistent and repetitive public restatement of this question (in the face of its very simple solution) interspersed with suggestive, near-slanderous innuendo, to wit...

"Are the stats on Superbcert's stones inflated...?

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

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."

...might lead one to conclude that your motives are not pure.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Hey Dave, in your position you're familiar with not only the "majors", but also many of the "minor league" labs.

Are you aware of any that check for strain routinely?

Does the AGA routinely check for strain, or considering doing so?

 

[optimized]

----------------
On 5/22/2003 9:50:27 AM harry wrote:

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.
----------------

Harry,

I'm kind of surprised at your nonchalance concerning how this thread has gone considering the fact that you initially started the thread with a thinly veiled accusation that Barry's BrillianceScope results couldn't be trusted, with that idea being central to your theory as to why SuperbCert doesn't send diamonds to Rockdoc. You continued to push this point, denying it was "a leap" to make such an assumption, and making comments like "I started this thread wondering about Superbcert's Brilliance Scope reports and why Superbcert won't allow Rockdoc to appraise its stones."

Some other choice comments you made:

"Besides the issue of strain, is there anything else about Superbcert's stones that I or any other consumer should know about?"
(Why would you assume there was when a perfectly valid and correct reason was given?)

"Are the stats on Superbcert's stones inflated or is Rockdoc biased against Superbcert?"
(Neither case seems true at this point, eh?)

"hmmm...interesting that's there's no response from Superbcert."
(Barry must be guilty of something then, eh? I think he's the one who REALLY shot J.R. too.)

"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?"
(Yes, apparently it was such a leap, especially considering the fact that Richard correctly identified the true reason for the policy in the third reply to your initial post, barely six hours after you posted it. Throughout this thread you were the only one who questioned the validity of SuperbCert's BrillianceScope results, and no amount of other possible factors seemed to be able to sway you. Why is that?)

Some other points:

Contrary to this last post of yours, I think you DO now have a "definite answer" as to why Barry chooses to not send stones to Rockdoc, provided by Rockdoc himself. If that isn't definite, I suppose no written text on a message board could ever provide such an answer.

I also agree with aljdeway. You never actually answered the question he patiently asked over and over. An answer is irrelevant at this point, but I just had to say it...


Why am I pointing all this out? Because I happen to have had a very nice shopping experience with Barry and think you treated him unfairly for no valid reason. I actually think you should be a bit more repentant for having borderline libeled him by alluding that he was a fraud and that his BrillianceScope results were questionable based solely on his decision to refrain from sending his diamonds to one specific appraiser (who you claim repeatedly is the ONLY appraiser with a BrillianceScope, which we never actually determined to be a factual statement). The true reason has been revealed, but you don't say so much as a "gee, I guess I was mistaken to have thought Barry's BrillianceScope results might be questionable," let alone a "sorry I jumped to conclusions." In fact, you make it seem like this thread should prompt people to look elsewhere, when I see it as having been resolved simply as two professionals who have differing opinions about a physical property of diamonds.

I'm glad you're finally able to move on, and I suspect Barry is happy you've chosen to use another dealer. Nobody likes to have their reputation questioned spuriously, especially by someone who won't even acknowledge it when they are shown the error of their ways.

]

-Tim

 

[optimized]

----------------
On 5/22/2003 8:25:14 PM DiamondExpert wrote:

Harry: On its face, it seems you have used this public forum to ask for an answer to a simple question - namely, why won't Barry send stones to RockDoc -but are apparently unable or unwilling to resolve the issue by picking up the phone, talking to Barry and asking him why! - surely, you could have done him this courtesy, and I'm sure he would have been happy to discuss the issue with you.

Your persistent and repetitive public restatement of this question (in the face of its very simple solution) interspersed with suggestive, near-slanderous innuendo, to wit...

"Are the stats on Superbcert's stones inflated...?

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

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."

...might lead one to conclude that your motives are not pure.


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

Gary (DiamondExpert),

Wow, that was eerie. I posted my comments, refreshed the page to look it over, and there were your (remarkably similar) comments, beating my post by a few minutes! LOL!

-Tim

 

[canadianice]

When you select the Brilliance Scope results from the SuperbCert website, the link to the light views/bar graph goes directly to gemex.com in your browser address window.

If that is the case, and Gemex has run the stone, the diamond has inherently been independently verified -- that is, the B-Scope results are data collected and maintained by Gemex, and thus not subject to Harry's implied "tampering" by SuperbCert.

 

[optimized]

Rockdoc,

I agree with David's sentiments. Your recent post was a very nicely composed summary of your position and it does help clarify your stance within the context of the issue. I can see how your policy toward strain can be a good thing for consumers who might be concerned with the phenomenon. However, since I've already sort of assumed the position of "strain insignificance" champion, I will just take a few minutes to point out a couple of things from the post that still seem slightly off to me. At this point I only comment to clarify points I've already made that I feel like I must not be getting across to you effectively, so this may indeed be heading toward the area of dead horse beating.

"In the case that a stone is going to be returned to the seller, because it has more strain than the customer might desire, my fee is $ 40.00 - so those who accuse me of getting rich with this are all wet."

I truly hope my comments about you making money on strained diamonds while costing dealers and consumers money on same didn't contribute to your decision to clarify your pricing. As I said before, I hold you in high regard as a professional appraiser and don't question your motivations. I only pointed out the money issue as a response to your apparent position that nobody really suffers by having a strained diamond rejected. Having said that, it IS still true that you are essentially the only party in the equation who makes money (however little) by counseling against strained diamonds.

"Appraisers do not have the luxury of being willfully blind or covering up, OR making light of a serious problem when such a condition has an affect on durability, beauty or the value of their purchase."

But therein lies the root of what I've been saying all along. I agree with your statement completely, but have yet to hear any empirical information from anyone as to why strain is a "serious problem" or how it "has an affect on durability, beauty or the value of their purchase." The whole of your stance seems to be based on your personal opinion and a theoretical structural weakness associated with strain, apparently gleaned from various cutters rather than from the study of finished diamonds and/or finished strained diamonds that have actually suffered damage. Yes, strain sometimes dictates how a cutter chooses to shape rough diamond, but that hardly translates into a risk to the consumer. To hijack one of your analogies, the quality of lumber used in construction is determined in part by the quality of the trees used to make it, and dictates somewhat how the mill chooses to process it. The finished board, while potentially having been fashioned from a less than ideal log, can still be of premium quality when it finally hits the rack at the lumber yard.

It's worth noting that, lacking any actual evidence of a detrimental impact of strain, you could still counsel against purchasing strained diamonds by simply saying that a strained diamond is not as "perfect" as an unstrained diamond and thus should be passed over if a comparable unstrained diamond is also available. This would allow you to still be looking out for the interests of the client, but without making debatable claims about the practical impact of strain.

"The position that some take saying I've never seen this happen IMHO is not one that deserves a lot of credibility. I will grant you that damage or breakage of a diamond due to strain may be uncommon, but approaching the question from the opposite stance inferring that it doesn't or can't happen is not completely valid."

I don't think anyone here has claimed that strain absolutely can't contribute to damage or breakage. But, there comes a point at which the risk is so slight that you potentially are doing a disservice to both the consumer and the dealer by focusing so acutely on an unproven theory that there is an imminent danger of damage due to strain. It's entirely possible that diamonds of wonderful make that otherwise "spoke to the customer" have been rejected due to a negligible risk posed by strain. My point has been that introducing FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt -- a Microsoft specialty, btw) into the minds of consumers about a physical property of diamonds that may or may not warrant it is not necessarily providing a worthwhile service. As I've said a few times, you may be right about strain, but there just doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence to justify the FUD created.

"What is the benefit of a consumer paying the same price for a stone with strain, vs. one without it?"

This is certainly a valid point in a vacuum, but doesn't take into account other variables that may well be at play. If strain in fact has little or no practical impact on a diamond's durability, then at the least you are closing doors on options that may well suit a customer's needs. Put another way, why automatically disqualify a diamond just because it exhibits strain when in all other respects the stone may well be the perfect choice for the customer? Perhaps we should keep in mind that each diamond is unique and finding another diamond that meets the customer's needs may not be as easy as it sometimes seems. It took me months to find "the perfect diamond" for my sweetie. I can only imagine how much more difficult it would have been if I had felt compelled to take strain into account as well.

"The general non issue opinion here leads me to think about the wood framing of a building ( usually a residence ). Some builders buy distorted grain wood with knots and use that for the framing of a house. Others use clear, unknotted straight grain lumber. Still others use second grade material and then double up on the pieces used. Here in Florida, substandard quality framing was used for years. It was fine for years too, until Hurricane Andrew came along.Since then, we've had significant changes in our building codes. Here, previously... we didn't see damage due to this before justifies a reason to sell using the less than 'perfect' framing...."

This is an interesting analogy, but I think it's ultimately an inaccurate one for a couple of reasons. First of all (and as a pointless technical aside from someone in the hardware business), nobody uses "clear, unknotted straight grain lumber" to frame a house. Yes, there are definitely different grades of wood used, but the really clean knot-free stuff is typically only used when the wood will be seen in the finished product. It's just prohibitively expensive to use finish-grade lumber for framing and provides no real benefit to the consumer from a durability or project suitability standpoint. While seeming to be a totally off-topic comment, this observation actually segues into my next point.

Lumber is graded using "industry standard" criteria established through testing and observation of the performance characteristics of the different types and conditions of wood. These observable characteristics are what determines the grade, and it's done using specific standards established, confirmed and recognized throughout the industry. The grading of lumber isn't based on an opinion of perceived but unconfirmed properties of wood. In Florida's case, the failure of building codes to recognize the risks has nothing to do with the lumber but with the shortsightedness of the developers of the building codes who failed to draw from the voluminous durability data available to them.

In contrast, while strain is a real phenomenon, to date nobody seems to have been able to produce any concrete data indicating a negative impact on durability or suitability for a specific purpose due to its presence. While this could theoretically be due to a lack of research, I believe it has more to do with strain indeed being a "non-issue." To my way of thinking, if there was a real impact on the durability of diamonds presented by strain the industry would have seized on by now, not to discount strained diamonds but rather to inflate the price of unstrained diamonds since the unstrained diamonds would be even more "rare" than DeBeers would already like us to believe. The diamond industry is all about perceived rarity and so would arguably be looking for any way to promote that perception in any way possible.

In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate that I understand where you're coming from and certainly don't knock you for making an effort to educate your customers completely about the physical properties of the diamonds they are considering purchasing. I think it's a good thing for consumers to be educated (I still learn new stuff about diamonds regularly despite having purchased my sweetie's ring six months ago). But, IMO asserting as fact a correlation between strain and an increased risk of breakage in finished diamonds based on sketchy and/or anecdotal information may be overstating the true situation as the industry understands it. Being such a respected member of the appraisal profession I think it behooves you to be sure of your position and be able to empirically back it up before creating a quality concern within the consumer arena where such a concern may be unnecessary.

Perhaps someday strain will be factored into the pricing of diamonds based on their "less than perfect" internal structure, at which point you will have in a way been vindicated, but at this point I'm concerned that you may ultimately be doing more harm than good by counseling against strained diamonds as a durability risk, and thereby introducing fear, uncertainty and doubt into a segment of the consumer market that quite possibly already has more information to sift through than they really want. The folks who hire you are looking for a professional who will help them cut through the hype and provide them with reasoned and proven information about their purchase. If strain indeed turns out to be a non-issue, have these folks been well served, or have they been swayed by just another bit of hype?

-Tim

 

[Rhino]

----------------
On 5/22/2003 8:25:26 PM Richard Sherwood wrote:

Hey Dave, in your position you're familiar with not only the "majors", but also many of the "minor league" labs.

Are you aware of any that check for strain routinely?

Does the AGA routinely check for strain, or considering doing so?

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

I'm curious to know the same thing. Dave ... and you too Rich ... will you guys be reporting the presence/absence of strain within diamond whether you believe it is relevant or not to the durability of the stone?

Rhino

 

[Rhino]

And if diamonds are going to be discounted based on the issue of strain this will increase the demand for diamonds without strain ... what kind of premium should be placed on "strainless" diamonds and what kind of discount could people expect to get on diamonds with strain? 1%? 2%? 10%? There is no factory I know of that bases their prices on this whatsoever. And what about a rare stone ... D VVS1? D or E IF and in the cut qualities alot of us are familiar with here. We're talking rare goods in some cases that are, due to their high clarity/color/cut combo extremely hard to get stones to begin with. Just curious on your thoughts to this.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

Putting yourself in the other man's shoes ...

While I don't take any sides here regarding harry (don't know the guy) or whoever ... how can you blame why he does bring this up? Let's put ourself in his shoes for a moment.

Let's say John Q comes on these forums and learns of the issues brought up here concerning strain. Some of us side with the opinion that it's a non-issue some side with RockDoc's opinion that it may indeed be an issue. Some may just want to double check the B'scope results ... WHATEVER the reason. When a vendor says you can only have your diamond appraised with x, y or z BUT NOT "w", who is a vendor to dictate who the consumer ... the paying consumer, can or can not have their diamond appraised with?

If I were a consumer that would certainly make me question the business and what are they trying to hide from me? When a vendor denies you the freedom of choice with whom you'd like to have your diamond checked out with this would naturally make me skeptical so I can understand where harry is coming from.

Tim, if I came to you for a very expensive purchase, say a diamond, but before I purchased from you and spent my hard earned money with you, I wanted to have the stone checked with RockDoc and you denied that to me. I'd think you had something to hide. Your actions would tell me that you're not being up front with me or that your withholding certain information from me. This would naturally make me skeptical of you and the things you told me, information etc. This is where harry is coming from.

Optimized, Canadianice, diamondexpert, etc. are all SC fans so are naturally biased towards SC and it is commendable to see them fend for their vendor (we vendors like to see our clients fend for us if needed

) but if you place yourself into the shoes of harry ... can you not understand how he can be skeptical? I can.

My .02c

Peace,
Rhino

 

[SkyMonkey]

I can completely see why a consumer would think along the line's summarised by Rhino above (I would have thought exactly that had it happened prior to my purchse). I can fully understand Harry posting here to seek an explanation / thoughts from other experts. I share Optimized's queries over the way in which the thread was developed by Harry and the implications behind his subsequent posts. And I absolutely CANNOT understand why Harry has persistently not responded to aljdeway's sensible question:

"... Are you trying to pressure Barry into sending to Rockdoc PRIOR to purchase? It's a very simple question."

If Harry pays up-front then he should have (and ultimately will have, even if he has to get it delivered to him first) total say as to who appraises his stone. If he doesn't then I can appreciate it's Barry's call to refuse to send it somewhere, whatever the reason. Whether a consumer in the latter situation decides to go elsewhere is obviously up to them and will presumably depend upon the explanation for the refusal.

 

[Egon]

----------------
On 5/22/2003 12:38:49 PM jlim wrote:

"I think most engineering students are educated only in stress/strain in metals and at the most ceramic. At least that's what I learn in college Bsc. & Msc in Engineering Mechanics. Never encounter an equation for calculating strain in a diamond.

Maybe someone can make up a Finite Element model of a diamond, introduce an internal strain and see how it propagate through fracture analysis."

I would submit that at least as a starting point you could just calculate the
engineering strain on one facet of the stone assuming a linear relationship via
Hookes law. A little simplistic perhaps, but certainly enough to give you an idea
of the rather massive forces that you would need to work on a diamond. I'll try
and show some more complete numbers later, but for the geeks in the audience, the Youngs
Modulus for a diamond is MASSIVELY HUGE! I wouldn't think it would be too hard to calculate the critical crack size either as long as you keep it simple and don't
start involving slip planes.

*geek mode off*

 

[harry]

since some of you decided to throw stones at me let me throw a few back.

pay up front before having it sent to an appraiser? have you not learned anything from these forums?

oh i get it. you think that if there's a 10 day return policy on the website there would be no problems. why don't you wise up and show exactly what it is that you think you have to an attorney friend and then listen to that friend tell you that you basically have nothing.

but lets suppose for a minute that you do have something. do you think that in this scenario you are save? do you think that it will be easy for you to get your money back through legal channels? where do you live? in the same city? in the same state? how will you physically get to the jurisdiction that Superbcert is in to take legal action and what will it cost you? can you take a day off work to do that, and then more days off if neeed? think you can get an attorney who will help you on your little lawsuit? think you can win an argument with barry about diamonds in front of a judge, given your knowledge of diamonds compared to his knowledge? as you're figuring these things out along the way, your finacee doesn't have a stone, you're out of the money, and weeks/months are passing by.

still want to pay for the stone before the appraiser checks it out?