The approach to searching a diamond, the traditional way versus the PS-way

[Paul-A]

Over the years, my appreaciation of the 4 C's has decreased. Not that they are unimportant, but the way they are generally presented often creates skewed expectations with the unprepared consumer.

The C's are generally presented in the following order, the easiest to explain first, but it leaves an impression of being an order of importance: Carat weight, Color, Clarity, Cut-quality last. Also, some of them are often incorrectly explained:
- Carat weight is not the same as Size, while most jewelers will continue to ask: "What size are you looking for?"
- Color is a badly chosen name, it should be named Tint or Hue.

Too many consumers are taught to aim for a certain carat-weight, not go below a certain color and to aim for SI2, as it is eye-clean in theory. Oh, and just to be sure, stick with EX in cut. With that established, many unprepared consumers go searching for the cheapest they can find with these exact 4 C's. On PS, we see regular threads, where an OP asks for his (example) 1.00 H-SI2 EX to be confirmed as a keeper. Luckily, the PS-crowd is very good at highlighting why it should not be considered.

Unfortunately however, it may also lead to frustration with the OP, whose dream diamond does not work out. He now needs to up his budget or he needs to give in on a C, which also feels like losing.

In this regard, I am happy to see Pricescope's recent efforts in updating the educational section of the site. My sincerest kudos for trying to present a different approach to searching your diamond. Especially on this page, the mission is stated in a very clear way: "The sparkliest diamond at the largest carat weight within your budget."

If you did not check yet, do read the new educational pages. They are far more entertaining now.

Live long,

 

[DejaWiz]

A while back, I recommended that someone apply the 4C's in the following order:

1. Cut
2. Clarity
3. Color
4. Carat

Which is in the reverse order that most shoppers apply (and most sellers push for...which I totally get: a business lives or dies by their bottom line).
It was (thankfully) brought to my attention that there may be cultural differences in how the 4C's are prioritized, which must be kept in mind by those providing analysis, advice, and recommendations.

There is also the unnamed 5th C: Certification.

Perhaps a 6th C? CHECK for (and scrutinize) advanced images.

If there is one piece of advice I could give to shoppers that are still in the early stages of learning about the science of diamonds: remain patient, because you will have a much longer list of rejected candidates than you will viable ones. The amount of money that one of these tiny little pieces of carved crystal costs is massive, so make sure that your purchase is maximized. If that means staying vigilant for weeks and weeks or even months and months, then bear in mind that the effort, frustration, and outcome will always be worth it!

While the 4C's are a great basis to start vetting candidates, each of them have way more intricacies, depth, and layers instead of merely being a simplified means to "pick a winner".

The most challenging aspect for giving analysis and advice is construing just how far deep those 4C intricacies go:
* Clarity is encompassing of the differences, severities, and positioning of any inclusions/blemishes and what their nature/behavior is.
* Color has a range of hue/tint that can exist within each grade.
* Cut is so much more than a simplified word or number printed on the report: The harmony of proportions, measurements, and symmetry which ultimately makes for the best light return and performance is the key factor.
* Carat is a measurement of weight and can present as top heavy, bottom heavy, or somewhere in between, and is never a guaranteed minimum physical diameter that is typically focused on and sought after by many shoppers.
* Certification (which ultimately portrays the 4C's) is slightly fundamentally flawed, just based on the differing amounts of criteria, margins of error, and measurement rounding that different labs (and even different people within the same lab) apply. This can absolutely mean that a diamond graded as Excellent/Ideal polish by one lab may only earn a Very Good from another, or a VS2 by one lab may earn an SI1 from another, etc.

That being said: all of this combined is why due diligent scrutinizing is of utmost importance, but we also need to keep in mind that each of us, subjectively, interprets data, presents analysis, or makes recommendations with some level of personal bias and preference.

 

[RunningwithScissors]

A while back, I recommended that someone apply the 4C's in the following order:

1. Cut
2. Clarity
3. Color
4. Carat

For some of us, COLOR is significantly more important than clarity (assuming we've already rejected diamonds whose clarity affects their structural integrity and performance.) We can see the difference between the color grades (and often within color grades) while we can't see the difference in clarity grades as long as the stone is eye clean.

I can't imagine recommending to another person a hierarchy in the 4 C's (except for prioritizing cut because cut=performance) unless I had spent time getting to know that person's personal preferences, cultural framework, and visual abilities.

Times when I walk into a jewelry store and the sales person starts bloviating to me about what I should be looking for without asking about my preferences, I walk out.

 

[DejaWiz]

For some of us, COLOR is significantly more important than clarity (assuming we've already rejected diamonds whose clarity affects their structural integrity and performance.) We can see the difference between the color grades (and often within color grades) while we can't see the difference in clarity grades as long as the stone is eye clean.

I can't imagine recommending to another person a hierarchy in the 4 C's (except for prioritizing cut because cut=performance) unless I had spent time getting to know that person's personal preferences, cultural framework, and visual abilities.

Times when I walk into a jewelry store and the sales person starts bloviating to me about what I should be looking for without asking about my preferences, I walk out.

Exactly! We all have our personal preferences and priorities, so the order of the 4C's will differ on an individual basis.

Here's a personal anecdote: when shopping for my wife's solitaire for our 15 year anniversary, my color preference was F-H. My wife easily saw the tint differences between an E and anything above an F. This forced me to rearrange my own priority of the 4C's so that I could focus on D-E first!
My list ended up as such:
1. Color - she desired a higher grade of "colorless"
2. Cut - I wanted her to have a diamond with the best characteristics of performance
3. Carat - stick within a certain predefined range
4. Clarity - shopping for a diamond that was a bit under 2, even 2.5 carat, we knew that an eye-clean SI1 would be perfectly acceptable (and price advantageous!)

 

[marymm]

FWIW I don't like the new education page you linked to -- I think the content is misleading and incomplete and simplistic -- the "secret recipe" and "sparkliest" blah blah is just marketing bullsh*t and rather strongly reminds me the new Amanda marketing compaign -- but that may be exactly what PS is aiming for -- too bad in my view. Personally I would never link to or direct anyone to that page ... just my 2 cents.

 

[sledge]

I think that I might have been the one to bust your cherry on the preferences @DejaWiz. More times than not our own passions and desires fuel very biased opinions. God knows I’ve learned this lesson the hard way myself. I guess I’m still learning because I’ve tried to modify response to be more neutral or make it clear when something is based on bias or opinion instead of fact.

Diamond education as a whole is poor amongst the majority of consumers, although it’s above average on PS. My goal here is to continue learning, hopefully contribute something useful and help people find gorgeous stones even if their idea of gorgeous varies from mine.

In regards to the C’s my own belief (see what I did there, lol) is that COST (or maybe more appropriately budget, but that doesn’t spell well for this analogy) is the silent 5th C and probably the most important. None of the other 4 come to existence without it. Much like proportions, it’s a math game of balance. If cost is fixed, the other C’s must adjust up/down based on individual scale of importance.

cost = cut + color + carat + clarity

 

[DejaWiz]

I think that I might have been the one to bust your cherry on the preferences @DejaWiz. More times than not our own passions and desires fuel very biased opinions. God knows I’ve learned this lesson the hard way myself. I guess I’m still learning because I’ve tried to modify response to be more neutral or make it clear when something is based on bias or opinion instead of fact.

Diamond education as a whole is poor amongst the majority of consumers, although it’s above average on PS. My goal here is to continue learning, hopefully contribute something useful and help people find gorgeous stones even if their idea of gorgeous varies from mine.

In regards to the C’s my own belief (see what I did there, lol) is that COST (or maybe more appropriately budget, but that doesn’t spell well for this analogy) is the silent 5th C and probably the most important. None of the other 4 come to existence without it. Much like proportions, it’s a math game of balance. If cost is fixed, the other C’s must adjust up/down based on individual scale of importance.

cost = cut + color + carat + clarity

I wasn't going to call out any names, but yeah it was you!
And I am thankful for that, just so you know.

 

[sledge]

FWIW I don't like the new education page you linked to -- I think the content is misleading and incomplete and simplistic -- the "secret recipe" and "sparkliest" blah blah is just marketing bullsh*t and rather strongly reminds me the new Amanda marketing compaign -- but that may be exactly what PS is aiming for -- too bad in my view. Personally I would never link to or direct anyone to that page ... just my 2 cents.

 

[marymm]

@sledge, I don't know what you are trying to communicate with those images/videos ... though I feel almost certain you would respect my right to state my opinion in this and any thread (?)

 

[DejaWiz]

@sledge, I don't know what you are trying to communicate with those images/videos ... though I feel almost certain you would respect my right to state my opinion in this and any thread (?)

I'm pretty sure it's merely light-hearted humor not to be taken seriously because he does respect others opinions/preferences when it comes to diamonds and he tries to keep those preferences in mind when he gives his amazing feedback and recommendations.

 

[sledge]

@marymm the pic and video was meant in good humorous spirit. You didn’t hold any punches back. I like the directness.

 

[yssie]

Yikes. Ditto @marymm.

“Bestest awesomest proprietary #Thing” worked great for Microsoft until people got sick of it and began demanding transparency. Then Linux took over. I think most younger buyers would run from anything labelled proprietary. I know I certainly would.

Let’s be real here. For all that we talk about “openness” and “transparency” regarding cut quality here on PS, cut grading is still VERY much a proprietary black box. The software used is still VERY much under intellectual lock and key, impossible to even use without paying for a pricey license. I’ll believe trade goals are altruistic and wholly in aid of improvement of the process when I see source code released - not a moment before.

 

[Karl_K]

I see the page has been updated already.
Any further ideas are welcome I am sure

@yssie ouch that hurts.

 

[Paul-A]

FWIW I don't like the new education page you linked to -- I think the content is misleading and incomplete and simplistic -- the "secret recipe" and "sparkliest" blah blah is just marketing bullsh*t and rather strongly reminds me the new Amanda marketing compaign -- but that may be exactly what PS is aiming for -- too bad in my view. Personally I would never link to or direct anyone to that page ... just my 2 cents.

@marymm , can you help me understand?

That the short educational page is incomplete seems logical. It is hard to be both short and complete.
The same is probably true for simplistic, although I find it a harsh word. Again, for a short introduction, simplifying matters seems hard to avoid.

The word 'misleading' however, I do not understand. Could you clarify?

Live long,

 

[marymm]

@Paul-A ... just noticed your signature and, now I know why it sounds like an Amanda Diamonds marketing brochure.

The linked article is actually entitled "Pricescope Diamond Buying Guide" -- as the apparent writer of the article, I don't know how you can be surprised to learn that the words "introduction" and "summary" and "brief" and "overview" do not appear in the article anywhere.

If you would like it to be less misleading, my suggestion would be to title the article more accurately, perhaps "How to Buy Pricescope-Sponsored Diamonds" or "How to Buy Diamonds on Pricescope.com." And move the article out of Education over to Resources or Tools.

 

[yssie]

@yssie ouch that hurts.

It’s uncomfortable. But I see too many parallels to discount.

The tech industry is racing toward open source software and embracing transparency. It has been established that having a global, diverse group of people contribute to passion projects - rather than a few industry experts creating and selling magic black boxes - leads consistently to more robust, more usable, better tested, more extensible products. That are also, ironically, ultimately more saleable. HCA is a magic black box. Diamcalc is a magic black box. PGS is a magic black box. GIA’s grading is a magic grey box. Younger, more tech-savvy consumers don’t trust magic boxes.

In 2021 open source software leads technology. I’m confident other industries will see the same trends sooner or later

 

[Karl_K]

as the apparent writer of the article,

The article was written by John Pollard as a rewrite of all the educational pages to update and improve them.
"Pricescope Diamond Buying Guide" means its going to discuss the pricescope way, I think that is clear.

 

[Karl_K]

It’s uncomfortable. But I see too many parallels to discount.

The tech industry is racing toward open source software and embracing transparency. It has been established that having a global, diverse group of people contribute to passion projects - rather than a few industry experts creating magic black boxes - leads consistently to more robust, more usable, better tested, more extensible products. I’m confident other industries will see the same trends sooner or later

Apple and Microsoft the 2 largest providers of operating systems are both closed source.
As is much of android other than the basics and all the drivers are binary blobs.
If anything walled gardens are the present and probably the future.

 

[yssie]

Apple and Microsoft the 2 largest providers of operating systems are both closed source.
As is much of android other than the basics and all the drivers are binary blobs.
If anything walled gardens are the present and probably the future.

Strong disagreement on all points. Linux is the single most widely used OS today.

Apple’s newest OS is Unix based. They’re going back to their OSS roots. Wozniak is one of the world’s original OSS evangelists. MS releases Linux with Windows and is doing all they can to popularize .NET Core over older frameworks. Satya Nadella has said, I quote, “we’re all in on open source” - and MS is now a huge OSS contributor.

Walled gardens have passed their popularity. The tech world is hurtling toward technology that is firmly in the OSS space. Just a matter of time before other industries are forced to catch up.

 

[Karl_K]

It’s uncomfortable. But I see too many parallels to discount.

None of those things are mine to open source and none of those things are pricescope's to open source.
The concept behind cut grading to me is more important than any black box.
You can make a very good set of testing tools with just some colored paper and a toilet paper tube if you want.
The scopes are not hugely expensive to buy either.
I do get it however I have a standing challenge to GIA and AGSL to come and talk to us for 15+ years.
*crickets*

 

[marymm]

The article was written by John Pollard as a rewrite of all the educational pages to update and improve them.
"Pricescope Diamond Buying Guide" means its going to discuss the pricescope way, I think that is clear.

Hi @Karl_K -- thank you for the correction. It may be helpful for the PS articles to notate the author. Certainly the original article that @Paul-A linked to contained several of the Amanda Diamond marketing buzz words, hence my confusion.

Also, in case my own prior posts in this thread are unclear, I myself find the title "Pricescope Diamond Buying Guide" confusing and misleading. You are stating that the title ipso fact means it's going to discuss "the pricescope way," and I beg to differ ... indeed, it is not clear, as I have stated more than once. I am refraining from addressing the ambiguity of "the pricescope way" phrase.

FWIW, I am actually known far and wide as a voracious reader, English is my native language, and I have a better than average reading comprehension ability. Thus, @Karl_K , while you may think it is clear, it is in fact clear to you ... and yet presumably the PS audience for the article is meant to comprise of more than a single member?

I agree the article is meant to tell people how to buy diamonds using the Pricescope.com diamond search tool. I do not consider that to be "Education."

Over and out.

 

[yssie]

Edit - Android is a actually OSS set of projects. Releasing only binaries wouldn’t be terribly useful or open since they’re build-specific - source code really must be available.

Software is the heart of cut evaluation and cut grading. I’m not suggesting that all twenty-somethings buying diamonds would dig into the bowels of PGS source before buying. Simply that as a demographic, tech savvy buyers of products in which software plays significant part in do pretty much universally appreciate knowing that that software was created by a diverse set of people with varied interests and varied agendas - and that the heart of that product is available to anyone who might care to see it.

Very true that it is the owners of the tools who must decide their futures. I look forward to watching the industry adapt.

 

[Paul-A]

Yikes. Ditto @marymm.

“Bestest awesomest proprietary #Thing” worked great for Microsoft until people got sick of it and began demanding transparency. Then Linux took over. I think most younger buyers would run from anything labelled proprietary. I know I certainly would.

Let’s be real here. For all that we talk about “openness” and “transparency” regarding cut quality here on PS, cut grading is still VERY much a proprietary black box. The software used is still VERY much under intellectual lock and key, impossible to even use without paying for a pricey license. I’ll believe trade goals are altruistic and wholly in aid of improvement of the process when I see source code released - not a moment before.

@yssie , @marymm , I have spent a lot of time thinking and re-thinking about both your posts. You have brought up good remarks, which have somewhat changed my view.

What I specifically liked about that specific educational PS-page was the way in which it attempts to highlight the true goal of the consumer: to find the most sparkling, biggest diamond within budget. Too many consumers get stuck into details of the 4 C’s, while these are not truly their goal.

But reading more closely and with more attention, I also see how the further content of that page may be considered misleading. For instance, it is presented as if the HCA is the end-all/be-all tool to obtain both the brightest and the most sparkling diamond.

That is entirely against the theory of HCA, which is a rejection-tool researching only potential brightness of a round diamond. It being presented on this page as if HCA also offers a measure of sparkle is indeed misleading. Not to mention that the HCA only works on round brilliants.

As for your plea for Open Source in cut-grading tools or systems, I am not sure if this is the solution. I would rather plead for more open communication on the limitations of specific cut-grading tools and systems. There should be more openness on what the tool or system can measure, what it only can give an indication of, and what absolutely cannot be determined.

For instance, all tools and systems I know only measure or offer an indication of (potential) brightness. Some may offer a limited indication of potential fire, while not measuring it. And as for an indication of potential scintillation, this is at best very limited.

Today, we are all culpable of presenting the existing tools as a solution to all questions. To achieve progress, there should be more open communication on the questions not properly solved.

 

[yssie]

What I specifically liked about that specific educational PS-page was the way in which it attempts to highlight the true goal of the consumer: to find the most sparkling, biggest diamond within budget. Too many consumers get stuck into details of the 4 C’s, while these are not truly their goal.

Disagree. I think that the demographic and goals of most new consumers could probably be summarized as follows:
- They are young men looking to propose to their partners
- They have two goals: (A) to have her say “yes”, and (B) to not get ripped off buying a rock.
I truly don’t think the majority of people buying a diamond care at all about nuances of 4 Cs and cut quality. It’s not about buying the biggest sparkliest diamond - that’s a happy side effect. The folks who stick around to debate are the exceptions, not the rules.

Consumers fundamentally don’t blindly trust vendors anymore. “Trust, but verify”. I believe what those young men looking to propose really want to get out of PS is a step by step “go here and buy this” - and they want to be able to trust that recommendation, which directly implies that they also want a step by step guide to verify that recommendation.

Cut grades, cut quality assessments from private entities, closed-source tools, for RBs HCA - these provide means for verification. They cannot, however, create trust. Trust is created through the excellent content that John Pollard has put together revamping the education sections, and consumer confidence that “I don’t have to go through all of this myself, because I believe that the people advising me espouse these truisms”. Trust is created through consumer confidence in the process of vetting of sponsored vendors and affiliates - this is a topic that came up in another thread, I know PS admins put a lot of effort into this and I know they’re working on elucidating it for us. Trust is created through seeing a network of respected tradepeople - who are transparent regarding their personal and professional agendas - participating in conversation.

 

[Cerulean]

It’s uncomfortable. But I see too many parallels to discount.

The tech industry is racing toward open source software and embracing transparency. It has been established that having a global, diverse group of people contribute to passion projects - rather than a few industry experts creating and selling magic black boxes - leads consistently to more robust, more usable, better tested, more extensible products. That are also, ironically, ultimately more saleable. HCA is a magic black box. Diamcalc is a magic black box. PGS is a magic black box. GIA’s grading is a magic grey box. Younger, more tech-savvy consumers don’t trust magic boxes.

In 2021 open source software leads technology. I’m confident other industries will see the same trends sooner or later

Yes, yes and yes to all this!

 

[Paul-A]

Disagree. I think that the demographic and goals of most new consumers could probably be summarized as follows:
- They are young men looking to propose to their partners
- They have two goals: (A) to have her say “yes”, and (B) to not get ripped off buying a rock.
I truly don’t think the majority of people buying a diamond care at all about nuances of 4 Cs and cut quality. It’s not about buying the biggest sparkliest diamond - that’s a happy side effect. The folks who stick around to debate are the exceptions, not the rules.

Consumers fundamentally don’t blindly trust vendors anymore. “Trust, but verify”. I believe what those young men looking to propose really want to get out of PS is a step by step “go here and buy this” - and they want to be able to trust that recommendation, which directly implies that they also want a step by step guide to verify that recommendation.

Cut grades, cut quality assessments from private entities, closed-source tools, for RBs HCA - these provide means for verification. They cannot, however, create trust. Trust is created through the excellent content that John Pollard has put together revamping the education sections, and consumer confidence that “I don’t have to go through all of this myself, because I believe that the people advising me espouse these truisms”. Trust is created through consumer confidence in the process of vetting of sponsored vendors and affiliates - this is a topic that came up in another thread, I know PS admins put a lot of effort into this and I know they’re working on elucidating it for us. Trust is created through seeing a network of respected tradepeople - who are transparent regarding their personal and professional agendas - participating in conversation.

@yssie , I think we are more in agreement, than in disagreement .

I do hope however that the quality of the diamond is not a factor in the answer to a proposal.

Can we dig a bit deeper into your remark that a main goal of a new consumer is not to get ripped off? I wonder how to define 'not getting ripped off'. Can we see it as such: "I paid x amount for this stone, did I not overpay?"

In today's reality, choosing any stone with most online sellers, one can not get that same stone (or truly equal) a lot cheaper elsewhere? Cost- and profit-models, as well as competition, are such that there is no room for over-charging, thus no over-paying or 'getting ripped off' on the consumer's side. Even most brick-and-mortars nowadays are price-competitive with online vendors.

However, we see more and more 'advice-websites', affiliates actually, popping up warning consumers that they are the ultimate protection against 'getting ripped off'. Are they possibly 'creating' a problem, in order to sell a solution? Or at least, are they not bringing up a problem, mostly of the past, in order to create fear with today's consumers?

In PS-terms, the perception is different. A consumer may pop up, asking if he is not getting ripped off, buying a dud of a diamond at x price. In reality, he is not getting ripped off, because the price is a fair price for that stone. But performance-wise, he could do much better, and PS's audience is very good in pointing that out.

Not getting ripped off thus has another definition, not? Even if the consumer originally wanted to be sure he is not over-paying for that particular stone, he is led to considering getting a more beautiful diamond. Not 'getting ripped off' gradually becomes the same as 'getting the biggest, most sparkling diamond within my budget'. Which brings us on the same page, I guess.

Live long,

 

[oldminer]

I have been a small participant in the process of creating the Pricescope method of finding the right diamond material. It is my belief that the education being offered is mostly directed at the majority of buyers who do not want endless diamond details and education, but wish to select a well cut and highly attractive diamond that has highly acceptable color, clarity, weight and an agreeable outline shape. In essence, a "no problem" diamond.

The reliance on GIA, AGS, and now IGI cut grading along with the HCA, when it is applicable, are all shortcuts to deeper education that is not required by most consumers. For the minority who become deeply enchanted or obsessed with diamond details, the heavy duty education offered now online on Pricescope and elsewhere, and importantly within the RockyTalky forum will help them do whatever they deem is right with their buying choices. This in depth approach is not for the majority of customers, but the education is there for those who want to take a deep dive into what makes a diamond truly outstanding.

With this in mind, and knowing that any education to be offered is subject to continued revision and change, the best simple phrase we could all agree with is "The sparkliest diamond at the largest carat weight within your budget." This is is not a perfect phrase, but it is an honest attempt to make a short sentence work in a fair way. Some potential diamond buyers have perfection in their mind. They need black box quick tools for screening, but they also need to understood several topics in far greater detail. A lot more of that detail is now posted within the education section of Pricescope. The education is far more current and well written than ever before. Expect it to continue to be a work in progress.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

A lot of good points being made in this thread by folks who understand this online community intimately, as well as other industries and forums.

I agree with @oldminer that the modernization of the education content that has begun here is a significant improvement. Since the forum caters to a wide range of shoppers, from those that are just looking for a bit of guidance or validation, to those who will eventually become enthusiasts and prosumers (and even move into the trade), the content needs to be organized in a way to provide an easy and intuitive path for beginners to drill down to more technical material.

In this way pricescope can avoid overwhelming newbies while also providing infinite depth for those members (both consumers and trade members) seeking a deeper understanding of diamonds.

There is a danger of dumbing it down too much on the front end and making it look like just another "salesy" site which might not appeal to visitors looking for higher level content. But if the pathways are clear and inviting, pricescope can truly be a place for everyone to feel comfortable.

 

[yssie]

@Paul-A I have always known you to be a man of curated opinion and fluid prose. As such, I don’t doubt that your choice of the term “entertaining” to describe the new education material was deliberated, as was the selection of page to highlight.

I waxed - maybe I should say “waned” - philosophical about trust in my last post. Mostly as a tradeperson demand - but we know that trusting consumer advocates is just as important here on PS. I’ve been on PS for a decade now. There are few topics I will shy from opining on. There are many tradepeople who participate here who I will trust on many topics. But there are exactly two trade professionals to whom I extend unquestioning trust and loyalty: Andrey, maintainer of the community that I’ve come to think of as extended family, and John Pollard, educator and friend.

PS has made an impressive and welcomed investment in its educational material. I look forward to seeing it evolve

 

[Rfisher]