Jump to content

New Diamond Search


Adylon
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hope it's ok if i post this topic.... I'd love to get some feedback on the new diamond search I've been working on:

http://www.adylon.com/search/

 

One big thing I wanted, was the ability to offer a simplified cut grading scale for all shapes, so people have some confidence in ideal, excellent, very good, etc, especially when no lab cut grade is given. These cut scores give extra weighting to GIA/AGS graded diamonds (no diamond can be given an Adylon Cut Score of Ideal unless it's GIA or AGS graded, and not all GIA EX automatically get the ideal cut score). But they can also search just within the lab cut grades as well if they do not wish to use the Adylon Cut Score method. And of course they can search by depth, table, l/w ratio, pol/sym, etc. Also EGL-USA is given it's own search criteria like GIA or AGS. EGL-International is lumped into "Other" ;) So this makes it much better for those that are considering EGL-USA but do not want an EGL-Int'l stone.

 

I'm still working out all the bugs, and integrating it into the new shopping cart. If you have a minute please try and it and let me know what you think :)

 

Thanks,

Yosef

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yosef,

 

Can you give us a link to the page that explains how the cut grade works please?

 

Neil

 

My cut score method? There is no page, just a bunch of forumulas, etc... and it's still being tweaked. I haven't even made my little popup windows yet ;) If you're interested I can send you a copy of all the logical rules once it's squared away. Basically there is Ideal, Excellent, Very Good, Good, and Poor.

 

For example with Rounds, Ideal must have:

 

AGS Ideal Cut Grade

-or-

GIA Excellent Cut Grade AND (Table=52-58, Depth=60-62.5, Polish = Ex, Symmetry = Ex, L/W=1.00)

 

EGL USA and Other lab reports do not qualify for the Adylon Ideal Cut Score no matter what their specs are.

 

I know this is all subjective and numerics can't always predict beauty. However again this is not an exercise in grading diamonds, it's a way of helping consumers choose something they otherwise are very confused by, especially on fancy shapes that have no cut grade.

 

Thanks for giving it a look Neil I always value your opinion :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the cut score method.

 

As I’m sure you know, a large part of the confusion when people use terms like ‘ideal’ or ‘poor’ is that it’s remarkably difficult to determine what, exactly, they mean by that. Since the metric isn’t, and can’t be, truly a measure of beauty, what is it a measure of?

 

I can’t help but notice that you’re ruling out David’s beloved 60/60’s. Why? Surely you will concede the point that there are at least SOME knockout stones with these specs. GIA went through a fair amount of effort to try and differentiate these, why exclude them at this point?

 

I’m especially curious about your rules for non-round stones. For example this marquise that you gave a score of ‘poor’ even though you’ve obviously never seen the stone and apparently don’t even have the full report on it. Can you elaborate on how you came to this conclusion?

 

http://www.adylon.com/search/diamond.php?id=2

 

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil, There are lots of fancy shapes right now scoring poor that should not, I'm tryring to fix that. It's a problem mostly in the marquise and emerald shapes, not sure why, some bug somewhere.

 

As for rounds and my cut score, I didn't want to call it a cut grade because I don't want to give people the false information that this is being graded by a human. The word "score" was used to make sure people understand it's based on numerics only. And that's what I'm going to explain to people in the pop up windows, etc. I would say the human eye trumps a lab cut grade, and a lab cut grade trumps my cut score. It's just meant as more of a guide to help sort and pick.

 

For 60% table, I guess I chose not to include it because of probability. While some may be very nice, even "ideal" by some, many others fall short. Same goes for all other shapes, I have to use numerics to aproximate which diamonds make good ideal candidates. I know it's subjective. The cut score isn't just for the web, I want my customers in the store to browse this as well. We get the "ideal" candidates, or the excellent and very good ones in the store, and we examine them in person, compare lab cut grades, and make a final choice which to buy.

 

The last thing I wanted was to confuse the distinction between Score and Grade, I know some websites are very vague and lump it into one "Cut" attribute, but I didn't want to do this. I'm sure in 5 years all the shapes will have ideal cut graded by GIA and AGS anyways so all my formulas will be for nothing ;) In the meantime hopefully they help people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, that marquise is supposed to be getting a cut score of Good. The Good symmetry and 1.69 L/W ratio both downgrade it to Good. In my score Good is Good ;) Poor is supposed to be "forget about it" ... I'd recommend people to consider Good and up on fancy shapes, Very Good and up on Rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a ranking of one item against the next where you are assigning a qualitative value for the purpose of customers comparing one against the next to decide which is ‘better’. That’s grading. The operative question is whether this grading is useful. No offense meant, but I think it is not, and assuming that it’s going to be based purely on l/w/d measurements on stones that you've never seen, I think it has little hope. In the case of rounds I don’t see that it adds anything either. With the exception of GIA-Excellent’s, are you are directly referencing the lab grade (meaning a lab grade of ‘very good’ or 'good' from either AGSL or GIA will always result in the same Adylon Score etc.)? What about stones from labs that don't assign a cut grade or that assign a meaningless one?

 

Allow me to make a suggestion that you NOT use the same names on your scale as the others. That’s a huge part of the confusion with the other systems and you’re just adding yours to the fray. The poor to ideal scale is already widely misunderstood. Use different words, say A1-A2-A3 etc.

 

In choosing another stone more or less at random, here’s a round that got an ‘excellent’ ranking and doesn’t seem to meet the requirements you listed above.

 

http://www.adylon.com/search/diamond.php?id=27255

 

Neil

Edited by denverappraiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cut grades for fancy shapes is a very tough if not an impossible nut to crack. Beauty is subjective and various combinations will yield beautiful face up looks. Fancy shaped diamonds really have to be seen.

 

To categorize one particular look as Excellent or Very Good does a disservice to other looks that may have a greater appeal to a consumer.

 

It would certainly be great for those of us selling diamonds on the Internet to have a neat and clean grading system for fancy shape diamonds but in our experience it absolutely does not work. Because of the irregular architecture of fancy shape diamonds, light entry and exit is more haphazard and random with many different combinations of Table-Crown-Pavillion angles and sizes as well as length/width ratios and shape definition critically impacting face-up beauty. What may appeal to one customer may not appeal to a second consumer. This is why consumers need to "see" the diamonds and if shopping on the Internet, work with a Vendor that can and will access the diamond(s) for data work up and evaluation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yosef,

 

You might want to poke around at your competitors. I've noticed that whiteflash has a proprietary grading system that uses between 1-5 stars to rank the stones, including stones that they haven't seen. I can't say I've really researched the system but the highest grade of 5-stars seems to be a measure of whether the owner likes a particular stone and will not be given until they see it in person, regardless of what the lab says. I'm pretty sure it's only available on stones that they actually own. The other 4 I think are based on proportion sets of length, width, depth and table along with a modifier for polish and symmetry, rather like you are doing. I think they use the AGA tables from the 80's as the basic parameter sets although the 4-star grade on round stones may involve some other things as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they would be willing to explain it to you if you called and asked. They're pretty forthcoming people.

 

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a ranking of one item against the next where you are assigning a qualitative value for the purpose of customers comparing one against the next to decide which is ‘better’. That’s grading. The operative question is whether this grading is useful. No offense meant, but I think it is not, and assuming that it’s going to be based purely on l/w/d measurements on stones that you've never seen, I think it has little hope. In the case of rounds I don’t see that it adds anything either. With the exception of GIA-Excellent’s, are you are directly referencing the lab grade (meaning a lab grade of ‘very good’ or 'good' from either AGSL or GIA will always result in the same Adylon Score etc.)? What about stones from labs that don't assign a cut grade or that assign a meaningless one?

 

Allow me to make a suggestion that you NOT use the same names on your scale as the others. That’s a huge part of the confusion with the other systems and you’re just adding yours to the fray. The poor to ideal scale is already widely misunderstood. Use different words, say A1-A2-A3 etc.

 

In choosing another stone more or less at random, here’s a round that got an ‘excellent’ ranking and doesn’t seem to meet the requirements you listed above.

 

http://www.adylon.com/search/diamond.php?id=27255

 

Neil

 

Hi Neil, that stone would have gotten ideal but was bumped down to excellent because it was >62.5% depth.

 

I know what you're saying about the scale, A1, A2, A3 or something else has some merit, I'll give it thought. I took no "pleasure" in coming up with a cut score, if I had my way it would not be there, I would much prefer the labs assign a cut grade for all stones and be done with it. But the fact is all the other websites in some fashion or another do evaluate cut for unseen diamonds and I feel like I'd be doing a disservice if I did not do the same. If I didn't tell people an 80% depth radiant was a poor cut I'm not sure how that lack of knowledge would be beneficial to them. But I wasn't about to tell people a 64% depth round was ideal either like some other websites. I guess the real question is... When is using numerics to classify diamonds helpful, when is it deceptive and when is it discriminatory? It's a fine line to walk and not an easy task.

 

Whether we like it or not, when we buy diamonds online we are buying blind. All you can really do is try to increase the probability of selecting the right stone.

 

Anyhow you and barry have given me some things to think about ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...