Diamond Dealers on Hot Seat

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:07:41 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Marilee J. Layman wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:09:03 GMT, William Black
wrote:


"Freedom Fries" wrote in message
...

Using slave labor should have put them on the hot seat a long time ago.
European hypocrites.

What's the position with this in the USA?


Depending on how their conscience nags them, people do or don't buy
blood diamonds.


Would you please explain what a "blood diamond" is.

Also called "conflict diamonds," they come from countries where the
money from the diamonds is used to keep the people down, frequently by
machine-gunning them.

--
Marilee J. Layman

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:14:22 GMT, "Peter W.. Rowe,"
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:07:24 -0700, in =A4=07=F5 Abrasha abrasha@abrash=
a.com wrote:


Who or what is HMG?

I believe it stands for:

"Her Majesties Government"

I think more exactly, Her Majesty's Government.

--=20
Marilee J. Layman

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:
"Freedom Fries" wrote in message
...

Using slave labor should have put them on the hot seat a long time ago.
European hypocrites.


What's the position with this in the USA?


De Beers, is not allowed to do business directly in the US, because of
US antitrust laws.

Which explains why everyone has all these problem about quality when buying
diamonds in the US...

Do the 'Benelux Syndicate' operate there?

Here in the UK most diamonds are originally sourced from one or the other.

Which is probably why diamond quality isn't an issue here.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:

HMG takes a very negative view of people involved in a trade where
British
soldiers get shot at.

Who or what is HMG?

Her Majesty's Government

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

Its interesting to see this topic discussed here.

De Beers is so much part of Southern Africa, I for one don't even think
about it.

In South Africa, one cannot own uncut diamonds or unwrought precious metals
without some sort of license. The sort of rules that I am sure wre created
by these large organisations (Anglo American and De Beers) a longtime ago to
protect their interests.

Look on a map at Namibia (Western Southern Africa). See the "skeleton
coast". Almost the entire coastline, extending a couple of kilometer inland
is called a restricted area, because the entire strip and coastal waters is
mined by De Beers. You can't go in without some sort of permit. I have heard
it said that De Beers pick up so many diamonds, that it is actually a very
common gemstone, and that prices are what they are purely by limiting
supply. Somewhere in the world is a large bank vault with more diamonds in
it that would cover the moon.

Funny thing is that a diamond mine in Lesotho (sold by De Beers to another
group) has made headlines here, by consistantly producing massive stones.

Did you know that De Beers is now once again privatly owned? The
Oppenheimers bought back the stock and delisted it from the Johannesburg
Stock Exchange.

William Black wrote:


Which explains why everyone has all these problem about quality when buying
diamonds in the US...

Huh? What are you talking about? "all these problem about quality when
buying diamonds in the US..." ... I don't think so. In fact buying
diamonds of quality is one of the easiest things in the world.


Do the 'Benelux Syndicate' operate there?

Here in the UK most diamonds are originally sourced from one or the other.

Which is probably why diamond quality isn't an issue here.

It isn't here either! Not by a long shot. You can get exactly what you
want and when you want it. Check out http://www.diamonds.com/, and try
it for yourself. Just as an example, I tried to find a fine quality
round diamond between .50 and .69 ct, D color, IF clarity and ideal cut.
Diamonds.com found 5 stones, all with GIA certs. the details on the
certs are visible also. You want better quality? Doesn't exist.

When I changed the search criteria for the same weight class, to E color
and VS clarity, ideal cut, the result yielded over 440 stones! Again
ALL with a GIA cert.

Even stones between 1 and 2 ct. in D-IF, ideal, are still relatively
plentiful (12) with a GIA cert.

3-4 ct, F-VS (still good quality), ideal, 6 stones.

Only when you do a search for stones over 4 carats, does it become a bit
more difficult to find a decent supply, but that would be the case
anywhere, since stones of that size are just very rare.

And when it comes to stones over 4 carats you can try to search here.
http://www.diamond.info/search/search.cgi/?aid=dh

4 - 10 ct, D - IF yielded a number of stones ALL with GIA certs! (If
you read carefully you'll notice, that in these last results the same
stone is listed as inventory by more than one supplier. This is so,
because the stone is in a national database to which many dealers have
access. It is not clear who owns the stones. For instance, the 6.00 ct
stone and the 8.90 ct stone are each time the same identical stone
offered by different dealers.

With all due respect, I don't think you know what you are talking about
when it comes to buying diamonds of fine quality in the US.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

"Abrasha" wrote in message
...

With all due respect, I don't think you know what you are talking about
when it comes to buying diamonds of fine quality in the US.

I most certainly don't.

But I've seen a series of posts here from people in the USA asking for
advice and asking how not to get ripped off when buying diamonds.

It's not an issue in the UK.

I assumed that the people posting here were the norm, looking at your post
I realise they were probably the exception.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:46:58 -0700, in ¸õ William Black
wrote:

I most certainly don't.

But I've seen a series of posts here from people in the USA asking for
advice and asking how not to get ripped off when buying diamonds.

It's not an issue in the UK.

I assumed that the people posting here were the norm, looking at your post
I realise they were probably the exception.

William,

so far as I know, buying diamonds for the public here in the USA is very similar
to how it works for you in the UK, with perhaps one exception, and that may be
public perception. Here, not all members of the public implicitely trust all
jewelers to be giving them a fair price and honest deal. Perhaps it's related to
our other often discussed difference, U.K. hallmarking practice, which tends to
lend trust to your customers. But here in the USA, despite the fact that most
jewelers work very hard to be fair and honest to a fault, there are still just
enough, that rare few, who generate horror stories of cheating and overcharging
and misrepresentation. So some of the public ends up not being sure who to trust
when it comes to buying a diamond.

Certainly, we in the trade can find anything we want, just as you can in the U.K.
And with the internet's wide resources, a net-aware retail consumer can equally
find just about anything they wish in terms of quality. But one other thing is
the same between the U.K. and the USA, and for that matter, the rest of the world,
and that is diamond prices are not regulated or monitored at the retail level. At
the wholesale level, market forces do a good job, but retail prices can vary a
lot, from the deep discount web seller who's making only a few percent, to the
high line exclusive traditional retail store who's charging a full retail markup
on the diamond. The consumer can guess, but won't know exactly what percentage of
the price they pay, is the wholesale cost, and whether the remaining profit margin
is fair or not.

With the net, they can do their homework, and find comparible prices, but even
then, there is sometimes too much info. Between the four C's, different cutting
styles and proportion grading standards, different levels of accuracy in various
diamond grading labs worldwide, and just the vast number of outlets, both "brick
and morter" and on the web, it's not surprising that some folks seem sufficiently
overwhelmed by the whole search that they finally come here and ask the group for
suggestions in the hope they'll get steered to some place they can trust. I have
every confidence that this is about the same in your neighborhood as it is in ours
on this side of the pond. It's interesting just how often, after all the data and
research and number crunching and all, the choices end up devolving into choosing
a source based not on an expert opinion or referral, but on the recommendation of
someone the consumber already knows and trusts. Which of course brings us right
back to one of those essential elements that keeps the "brick and morter" stores
in business selling diamonds. They been around long enough to have built up
reputations as being trustworthy, and some people will go for that even when
they're pretty sure they'll be paying a bit more, just because this way they can
feel confident that at least, they're being dealt with honestly. So it goes.

cheers

Peter Rowe

"Peter W.. Rowe," wrote in
:

Here, not all members of the public implicitely trust all
jewelers to be giving them a fair price and honest deal.

Nor should they. I bought my wife two rings from a "reputable" jeweler in
the city where we lived. One was represented as a garnet and the other as a
topaz. Given the reputation of the store, I didn't bother to check out the
stones for thirty years, at which time I found I had bought a synthetic ruby
and a smoky quartz. My friend, the colored stone dealer, explained that this
was common practice at the time and, to a lesser extent, is today. So long
as the value of the piece was near to what was represented, no harm, no foul.
Except...that the garnet would be worth around $12,000 today versus being
worth about what I paid in the seventies. and the topaz would be worth 10-15
times what I paid versus being worth, again, about what I paid.

--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:00:03 -0700, in ?õ "Séimí mac Liam"
wrote:

Nor should they. I bought my wife two rings from a "reputable" jeweler in
the city where we lived. One was represented as a garnet and the other as a
topaz. Given the reputation of the store, I didn't bother to check out the
stones for thirty years, at which time I found I had bought a synthetic ruby
and a smoky quartz. My friend, the colored stone dealer, explained that this
was common practice at the time and, to a lesser extent, is today.

No, it's not, nor has it been, not exactly. The word Topaz properly means the
mineral, and gems that consist of the mineral topaz, but the word has had a long
time traditional usage also to denote smokey quartz. That's not just a dishonest
or imprecise jeweler, that was a long time traditional usage of the word. And
incorrect one, but even so, traditional. Not so common today.

As to the garnet, well, Garnet colored, ie dark red versus the bright ruby red of
fine ruby, synthetic corundum has never been properly called garnet, unless the
word simulated or imitation is included. Even 30 years ago, calling that
synthetic a garnet without qualification would have been considered unethical, as
it would today. Nevertheless, in so called 'birthstone" jewelry and things like
"mothers rings", the use of such synthetics has long been common and routine.
Sounds like you ran into a sales person who didn't know the first thing about
gemology. Sadly, that too, is still common enough, not just in this country, but
everywhere in the world.


So long
as the value of the piece was near to what was represented, no harm, no foul.

Again, nope. I think your friend was trying to soften the blow. It was not, 30
years ago, any more than today, considered just OK if the values were right.

Except...that the garnet would be worth around $12,000 today versus being
worth about what I paid in the seventies. and the topaz would be worth 10-15
times what I paid versus being worth, again, about what I paid.

Now here's where I get REALLY curious. First, with your "topaz", or smokey
quartz. True, Topaz is more valuable. But if it's a smokey quartz color, ie a
brown to grey brown color, the value of a real topaz gem in that color is not
likely to be very high. The valuable ones generally occur in colors that do not
match those quartz gems that commonly were sold as topaz. I'll bet you'd still
only have a 20 dollar stone were it topaz. And Garnet? just how big IS that dark
red rock of yours? Dark red garnets generally are almandite or something similar.
That's pretty cheap stuff, even in large sizes. A really large one might be a
hundred bucks. Thousands? I think not. Again, some are more valuable, like the
green tsavorites, and some of the other more exotic ones. But the only ones
likely to be substituted for by a synthetic corundum are dark red. Generally that
would have been, as today, with the almandite variety. At best, a pyrope, which
is more money, but those are not often seen in commercial jewelry, and are almost
always quite small. Even an unusually large one is not liekly to fetch the
estimate you're quoting. None of the red garnets in that color range has
undergone some unusual transformation in the marketplace to turn it from a common
gem 30 years ago to something unusually valuable today. Yes, they're more, but so
is everything. Inflation and all... In fact, even your synthetics (which due to
their harder nature, will have been worn down much less in the last 30 years) are
worth a lot more today than they were 30 years ago. A decent thumbnail sized dark
red ring stone might cost twenty or thirty dollars from some suppliers these days,
while thirty years ago, it might have cost two or three...

cheers

Peter