Diamonds and Worth

A recent article in Bloomberg Business once again proved that most people, even those who don’t know beans about diamonds, have an opinion about them.  In general, the article was a look at increased demands for diamonds by consumers in China and India and the affects those demands have had on prices.  All well and good; but I must take exception to the author’s (Thomas Biesheuvel) use of the word ‘quality’ as opposed to ‘rarity’ and  his apparent failure to understand the difference between price and worth.

Let’s begin with some observations on what the buyers of diamonds pay for.  The author wrote, “Diamonds are ranked by the four C’s: clarity, cut, color and carat weight. In terms of clarity, the highest quality diamonds are classed as flawless or internally flawless. Below that grade, the industry grades stones by their inclusions or blemishes: there are very, very small included, very slight included, slightly included, or SI, and included, or I, stones.”   All of this is true, but blind to carat weight and cut as rarity factors.  On the average, 80% of a diamond mine’s yield is ‘industrial’, in other words, diamonds that are not fit, for one reason or another (including buyer preferences!) for use in jewelry.  Of the remaining 20% only one diamond in 5 can be cut into a gem weighing 1/5 of a carat or more (0.20 carats, ’20 points’ in diamond parlance or for those of you with a metric bent, 0.04 grams); and the rarity of diamonds increases dramatically with increases in weight.  If one considers weight alone (again looking at industry averages), a diamond that can be cut into a 1 carat gem is statistically and quite literally ‘one in a million’; and an average of 250 tons of host rock had to be mined, crushed and sorted to find it.  A 2 carat gem is statistically one in five million find and no one knows how rare gems weighing significantly more than 2 carats may be.  So as any fool can plainly see, one of the things a diamond buyer pays for is the weight of a single important diamond.  Of course, here is where cut comes into play.  After all, as Mark Twain once observed, ‘Figures don’t lie; but liars figure.’

I can not begin to estimate how often a young woman has come into our shop looking for a ‘1 carat’ diamond; and that makes it pretty clear that weight drives the average diamond purchase.  It is, however, a somewhat naive request.  When it comes to cutting diamonds, there is a lot of figuring involved.  Rough (uncut diamonds) come in a variety of shapes dictated by both the circumstances of their formation and what may have happened to them in the 4,000,000,000 years since the moment of their creation.  Optimally, however, an unbroken octahedral crystal (think of a pair of 4 sided pyramids base to base) is the best candidate for cutting into a round, brilliant cut diamond (far and away the brightest of diamond shapes); but there is a hitch.  On average the angle between either point of the crystal and the base of the pyramid is about 60º; but if the diamond cutter is to cut the rough gem for the greatest brilliance and sparkle he will polish the angle from its edge (girdle) to its bottom point (culet) to a bit more than 40º and an angle of something between 34º and 35º between the girdle and its top facet (table).  In the process he will lose close to half the weight of the rough diamond.  The boss probably won’t like that since weight sells.  Therefore, as a result of consumer demand, the cut of most diamonds is compromised in favor of weight.  This is so prevalent that I once had a diamond cutter friend ask me, “What does a diamond cutter call a 0.85 carat diamond?”  In blythe ignorance I replied that I didn’t know.  He laughingly rejoined, “A mistake.”  A 1 carat round brilliant cut diamond ideally proportioned for brilliance and sparkle should be about 6.45 millimeters in diameter; but the average diameter of a round brilliant cut diamond sold today is smaller.  The cutters and their bosses have agreed to ‘figure’ that by cutting to less than ideal proportions (sacrificing some beauty) the rough they are dealing with can become a ‘liar’s carat’.  Don’t even get me started on ‘princess cut diamonds’.   Suffice it to say that weight for weight, color and clarity being equal, they look 30% smaller than a round brilliant cut; but owing to weight retention, they cost 30% less - another ‘liar’s carat‘ for naive public consumption.  Incidentally, I’ve seen top color and clarity diamonds so poorly cut one could have passed for a broken tooth.

That brings us to ‘worth’.  In his article Mr. Biesheuvel observed that while the market price for the most rare of diamonds had increased by only 7% over the last year, less rare (he co-opted the term ‘Wal-Mart‘ diamonds to describe them) diamonds had increased in price by 24%.  I’ve seen the increase and it is absolutely true; but in observing that Asia’s burgeoning middle classes were somehow settling for less he has erred.  After 60 years in the diamond business I can tell you that a diamond is purchased out of emotion.  If we go back to the ‘4 Cs’ its clear that they are so rare that to own or give one is more closely akin to a gift or purchase of flowers than it is to a bank account.  Their worth derives from the esteem in which they are held; and like Americans, the newly well to do of Asia purchase diamonds to say ‘I love you’ or ‘I’ve made it!’.  As a diamond ‘fanatic’, therefore, I would as leaf sell an ‘ugly’ diamond as my favorite florist would sell diseased flowers; so if you are in the market for a diamond to celebrate one of life’s great emotions, you owe it to yourself  to come see me.  Check out our website, hurstsberwynjewelers.com; then phone us at 708.788.0880 for an appointment with beauty.  We’re Hursts’ Berwyn Jewelers.   We care, we’re expert and we’ll help you select a beautiful diamond that, 100 years from now, will be ‘Grandma’s diamond’ and a ‘priceless’ family treasure.

P.S. If you have diamonds or broken or unworn pieces of jewelry that you would like to sell, come in and we’ll help you establish their market value; and perhaps, we’ll make the best offer to buy them.

GOLD BUGS CRUSHED

It is always amazing to me how little we learn from history, both that of the western world and our own.  Take the real estate collapse that led to the great recession of this century, for example.  It was fueled by bank sales of ‘Collateralized Debt Obligations’ to buyers willing to believe that they had value when in fact they were dominated by sub-prime mortgages on real estate sold at inflated prices - a ‘sure thing’ bankers insisted.  Unremarkably, this sort of a scam is as old as the notion of stock markets, beginning with the ‘Great South Seas Bubble’ of the early 1600s.  In like manner, trading commodities at prices exceeding their utility also dates back to the same period of time beginning with (of all things) the ‘Tulip Bulb Bubble’.  So the dramatic fall in the price of gold should not have taken anyone by surprise.

If you’ve not followed this drama, the bare bones facts are these.  About a dozen years ago gold sold for in the neighborhood of $260/ounce.  This price kept many mining operations shut down as the cost of extracting it would be greater than the price it could obtain in the market.  The market, of course was driven by demands divided, roughly, into industrial demand, about 25% of annual production, and the rest, divided in turn, into gold used to make jewelry and gold that was hoarded.  In India, at that time consumer of more than a quarter of the world’s annual gold production, the line between gold hoarding and jewelry was ill defined; as much gold the consumer looked upon as a ‘currency reserve’ was fabricated into crudely made jewelry, the better to keep an eye on it.  In a very real sense, the value ascribed to gold was probably greater than any value derived from its utility; but the differential was not huge.  By the end of April 2003, the price of gold had risen by about 29% over its 2001 market price; a year later the price of gold had crept to about $390/ounce, a 50% increase over its 2001 level.  Soon, this sort of increase would attract ‘hot money’.

Hedge fund operators began to take an interest in gold as a ‘quick fix’ for out of ‘whack’ balance sheets at the end of a quarter.  Invest a few billion dollars in gold (using automated computer trading at the speed of light) and the price of gold would jump up enough, usually in the range of 13% to 14%, to make the old balance sheet look good, then dump it after the need had passed. Interestingly enough, between 2006 and the end of 2011 this rhythmic range (13% to 14%) in the price at which gold was traded remained largely constant.  What changed was the arrival of the “gold bugs”.  These were individual investors who bought and held gold for long term profit; one can justifiably call them speculators.  Ironically, this was often out of a belief that fiat currency was doomed to lose its value.  I say ‘ironically’ because their faith in gold’s value was fueled by manipulation and speculation - the same sorts of actions that affect that other ‘commodity’ detached (like gold) from practical utility - fiat currency.  Ultimately, in the late summer and early autumn of 2011, the price of gold flirted with $1900/ounce; all without any increase in its practical utility.  Like the captain of the Titanic, the gold bugs were roaring full steam ahead into danger.

It came not in a collision with an iceberg; rather it was a collision with that other ‘commodity’, fiat currency, namely, the Euro.  Five Eurozone countries fell economically ‘ill’ in the wake of the ‘crash of 2008’ and required ‘bailouts’ by the rest of the zone to keep from defaulting on their debts.  Among these, the faltering, running sore of Greek bailouts clearly raised some questions for hedge fund managers; and the price of gold fell from its dizzying heights of September, 2011 by about 19% (to about $1535/ounce) at the end of December.  Once burned, twice shy; and interestingly, the swings in the price of gold dropped to an average of less than 2% - hard on speculators.   In late 2012 things got worse.  Banks in Cyprus, another Eurozone economy, had ‘invested’ quite a bit of their depositors’ money in Greek bonds; and as these were devalued, the question of whether Eurozone banking insurance would bail depositors out came into focus.  The answer was equivocal; the Euro shook; and in the denouement of this crisis, The European Commission (on April 9, 2013) declared that Cyprus had agreed to selling off a bit more than $500 thousand in ‘excess’ gold reserves to keep from defaulting.   The chief of the Cyprus central bank demurred, insisting that only he could authorize the sale of gold; and within a week the world price of gold fell by more than 12%.  And if that didn’t put an end to gold fever, on the 15th, American investment banker Goldman Sachs announced that it anticipated the price of gold to fall to about $1250/ounce by the end of 2014.  In a word, if you had bought gold after the end of August, 2010, you could expect to take a loss if you tried to sell it.  So much for the value of gold as an investment.

While I can’t advise you on your economic investment, I can make a solid recommendation about your investments in yourself and others.  Record and celebrate your life and your love with the best in diamonds, Hearts On Fire.  They’ll be an eternal part of your life thereafter and a bit of history that your children and grandchildren will treasure forever.  Check them out on our website, hurstsberwynjewelers.com; then phone us at 708.788.0880 for an appointment.  We’ll listen.  We’ll help you tell your story because were Hursts Berwyn Jewelers, not a common jeweler. 

Sneaky Diamonds

Every now and then I am asked about synthetic diamonds; and every time it brings to mind a story told me by Tom Chatham (a successful maker of synthetic emeralds, sapphires and rubies) almost 20 years ago. Following the collapse of the old Soviet Union many former Soviet scientists were searching for a new identity and a new job; and soon stories about Russian synthetic diamonds began making their way west. When they came to Tom, he decided he had to learn more.

First there was the ‘why’ of Soviet research; and he quickly learned that it was connected to Soviet military research. Unlike the diamonds in 1971’s James Bond film (Diamonds are Forever), synthetic diamonds were not to be used directly in weapons systems. Diamonds are nearly perfect transmitters of heat; and printed circuits, printed on ‘slices’ of diamond instead of glass, that is, lay at the heart of the Soviet research initiative. The electromagnetic pulse emitted by a nuclear blast would ‘fry’ circuits printed on glass at a fairly great distance - thus compromising the utility of modern communications and computer hardware on the ‘nuclear battlefield’. By contrast, a circuit printed on a diamond slice could quickly and uniformly dissipate the heat a blast generated electromagnetic pulse imposed on a circuit printed on it, thus rendering it ‘battlefield hardened’. The government’s collapse had brought research to a sudden halt that left scientists and technicians employed in it high and dry - and looking for a new source of income. Their research and need brought Tom, eventually, to researchers in component states of the old Soviet Union - Russia (Novosibirsk) , Ukraine (Kiev) and Belorussia (Minsk).

In Novosibirsk Tom quickly found scientists interested in making diamonds for the consumer market. Unfortunately, the Russian ‘Mafia’ learned of his interest almost at once and tried to ‘muscle in’. This left Tom waiting in Novosibirsk (and waiting, and waiting) for the problem to work itself out until one day a stranger approached him on the street. The news of his interest has made its way through the gossip underground to Kiev; and the stranger was there to make him an offer. “Come to Kiev,” he said, “And we will make diamonds for you.” Frustrated in Novosibirsk, Tom readily agreed to give Kiev a try.

Sure enough, when he got to the diamond laboratory in Kiev he was shown some small, but nice, recognizably synthetic diamonds; so he and the scientists made a tentative agreement. All did not go well, however. It takes quite a bit of electrical power to synthesize diamonds (using heat and pressure); and shortly after Tom and his new collaborators had made their agreement, Ukraine’s coal miners went out on strike. Coal was not shipped to generation plants; electrical power became irregular; and the new partnership died. Once again at loose ends, Tom cooled his heels in Kiev awaiting the return of power; but the gossip underground was still at work. A new stranger turned up. “Come to Minsk,” he said, “We’re making pretty good synthetic diamonds.” True to his quest, Tom went to Minsk.

He was warmly welcomed in the Minsk lab; and the diamond scientists there readily showed him some of their wares. “Wow!” Tom exclaimed. “These are the best I’ve seen yet, let me seemore.” Somewhat uncomfortable now, the former Soviet scientists admitted that while they had made quite a few more, they had shown him all they had. “What happened to the rest?” queried Tom. A moment of silence, then one of the scientists replied, “We sold them to a Belgian diamond cutter.” Chagrined at a Belgian having beaten him to the synthetic diamond market, Tom could only say, “I didn’t know the Belgians were cutting synthetic diamonds.” Looking down at his shoes, the scientist who had revealed the disposition of their diamonds shook his head saying, “Neither do they.” In short the synthetic diamonds had been passed off as natural and sold into the gem trade; but in the second decade of the 21st century this is far less likely to happen.

Two techniques of synthetic diamond manufacture are currently in use, chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and Russian developed heat and pressure (HPHT); and each leaves its ‘finger prints’ in a diamond grown using it. De Beers, once alerted to the threat of synthetic diamonds being fraudulently introduced into the market as natural gems, put its science team to work and in the late ‘90s introduced two machines into the market, the ‘DiamondSure’ and the ‘DiamondView’. These so accurately ferret out a diamond’s ‘finger prints’ that they’ve come into general use in the diamond trade. Of course, that doesn’t keep the honesty challenged from trying. In the spring of 2012, for example, a parcel of several hundred cut diamonds ranging from about 0.30 carats to 0.70 carats (few larger synthetics have ever been grown) arrived at the Gemological Institute of America’s lab in Hong Kong. All were suspiciously free of nitrogen (95% of all natural diamonds contain traces of nitrogen) and all showed the curved graining typical of CVD grown diamonds. Clearly all were synthetic and all of them were kept out of the market for natural diamonds.

Needless to say, it’s important to know who you are buying diamonds from. Ours are natural, sourced from DeBeers and the cream of the crop. We think the emotional value of a diamond gift is so great that only a beautiful diamond will do; so come see us for the very best in diamonds. You’ll never regret it because we’re Hursts’ Berwyn Jewelers, an uncommon jeweler. You can learn more about us on line at hurstsberwynjewelers.com, then phone us at 708.788.0880 for an appointment.

P.S. If you have diamonds or broken or unworn pieces of jewelry that you would like to sell, come in and we’ll help you establish their market value; and perhaps, we’ll make the best offer to buy them.

Botswana, Diamonds and You

Ever since Leonardo DiCaprio’s staring appearance in the 2006 movie ‘Blood Diamond’ some pseudo-savants have been concerned over the social affects of diamond sourcing without bothering to check facts.  If, perhaps, Charles Leavitt (author of the screenplay) and Edward Zwick (director) could put together a similarly gripping film about columbite-tantalite (important to cell phone manufacture) their attention might be redirected.  At least two unsavory rebel groups in the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo are actively engaged in human rights abuses to mine this mineral; but it seems to draw little attention while some continue to demonize diamond sourcing   Nothing could be more misleading.  Allow me to direct your attention to Botswana.

For those of you who’ve never looked into it, you may be pleased to learn that in 2002, and without a shot being fired, the diamond business, agreeing to the Kimberly Process, purged itself of many of the demons raised (long after the fact!) in the ‘Blood Diamond’.   The Kimberly Process is an agreement to frustrate the use of rough diamonds to finance rebellions; and as one of the original parties to the agreement, Botswana deserves a look. Unlike Zimbabwe, where diamond profits, embezzled by corrupt officials, are used to support Robert Mugabe’s dictatorial government, and unlike the diamonds of ‘Blood Diamond’, Botswana’s diamonds have been used for the public good since they were first discovered to be commercially recoverable in 1967.  Indeed, when CNN interviewed Botswana’s Education Minister  Jacob Dicky Nkate (since returned to the private practice of law), about the country’s diamond wealth he pointedly said, "Our former leaders were visionaries.  They insisted that after the discovery of diamonds, every single [citizen] be entitled to a free education from first grade to a doctorate degree free of charge. How many democracies can boast that achievement?"

In fact, or at least according to the ‘CIA World Fact Book’, diamonds have been the driving force in raising Botswana from one of the world’s poorest nations to  one of ‘middle’ wealth with a per capita domestic product on a par with Russia, Chile and Turkey.  The joint diamond mining venture between DeBeers and Botswana, ‘Debswana’, is the world's largest diamond producer by value; and it

is the source of about 30% of Botswana's Gross Domestic Product.  Between dividends, royalties and taxes, the company is the source of virtually 50% of all of Botswana’s Government revenues, and more than 95% of the company’s more than 7,000 employees are Botswanans.   The downside to this, of course, is that Botswana’s dependence on diamonds raises the risk that when the diamonds run out (thought to be about twenty years from now) the economy will collapse.  As this is a foreseeable risk, the Government of Botswana has once again begun to use its diamond wealth as a bootstrap.  DeBeers, for instance, has agreed that beginning this year it will sort all of its diamonds in Gaborone, the country’s capital, which De Beers CEO, Phillippe Mellier, estimates will transform Botswana “into a leading international diamond center.”  And there are other plans as well.

It’s stable and transparent democratic government affords Botswana one of Africa’s best investment climates, one the Government seeks to capitalize on to spur foreign investment in the extraction of some of the other minerals in which the country abounds.  For the present and the diamond buyer, however, it is Botswana’s participation in DeBeers that may be the most telling.

Our former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, may have said it all in a 2009 interview.  “...When you buy a diamond from De Beers, part of that money still today goes to help build and maintain roads and clean water systems in Botswana. You can drive anywhere in that country and you can see services that have been paid for by a legal framework, strong regulations, and a national consensus that the money from the Earth and its riches should be spent on the people of Botswana...”

If that doesn’t justify the purchase of a great diamond to celebrate your great romance, I don’t know what else might.  And for your information, all of our superlative Hearts On Fire diamonds are sourced from DeBeers and then cut to a beauty that others just can’t match.  So check out our website, hurstsberwynjewelers.com, then phone us for an appointment to select the perfect statement of your love.  We’re Hursts’ Berwyn Jewelers and our greatest pleasure is helping you say what you want to say with a great gift from the heart.  That’s why we’re the uncommon jeweler.

P.S. If you have diamonds, broken or unworn pieces of jewelry that you would like to sell, come in and we’ll help you establish their market value; perhaps, we’ll make the best offer to buy them.

Zimbabwe Diamonds

Two events marked the end of February, the first drew world attention, the second was little noticed.  The first, of course, was Pope Benedict XVI’s abdication; the second was Robert Mugabe’s 89th birthday - two events that underscore the difference between responsibility and denial.  As you probably know, Pope Benedict was moved to abdicate by his fear that at age 85 he was no longer able to fully discharge his responsibilities as leader of one of the world’s great faiths.  On the other hand, Mugabe, chief executive of Zimbabwe for the last 33 years, has made it clear that he has no intention of stepping down.  Most will see Benedict’s decision as positive; while those of us who follow events in Zimbabwe can only see Mugabe’s continuation in power as a tragedy for the people of that country.

If you’re not acute to Zimbabwean affairs, let me bring you up to speed.  In the 1960s a white dominated country, Rhodesia, came into being to the north of the Republic of South Africa.  The former colonial power, Britain, the U.S. and the U.N. refused to recognize the new country, demanding voting rights for its black African majority.  The black majority took direct action; and a civil war of more than a decade’s duration erupted in the country.   When, in 1980, the smoke cleared, Mugabe emerged as the newly anointed Zimbabwe’s first prime minister, and after 1987, the country’s president.  To refer to him as the nation’s ‘ruler’ is not unwarranted; and the ensuing slide into economic disaster as the result of corrupt and coercive politics only underscore’s Lord Acton’s observation that, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."  So it has been with Mugabe.

The CIA World Fact Book addresses the current situation in Zimbabwe as follows. “ Zimbabwe is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of forced labor and sexual exploitation; some victims of forced prostitution are subsequently transported across the border to South Africa where they suffer continued exploitation; Zimbabwean men, women, and children are subjected to forced labor in agriculture and domestic service in rural areas, as well as domestic servitude and sex trafficking in cities and towns; children are also utilized in the commission of illegal activities, including gambling and drug smuggling.  The Government of Zimbabwe does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so; the government did not report investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of trafficking cases and continued to rely on an international organization to provide law enforcement training, coordinate victim care and repatriation, and lead prevention efforts.”  For the U.S. Government and the European Union these behaviors have raised a cautionary flag.  In 2003 both the U.S. and the E.U. imposed trade sanctions on Zimbabwe; but not on the country as a whole so much as on particular individuals - who just happen to be ‘important’ Mugabe supporters.  

Alan Martin, research director of Partnership Africa Canada, recently observed of those sanctioned, “The sanction list is a pretty small one, and it’s very targeted.  It is limited to people who are accused of serious human rights abuses or corruption. It’s a pretty hard process to get on that list. It’s not something that’s done willy-nilly. Most of these people are known criminals or murderers.”   And it is Marange diamonds that have brought affairs in Zimbabwe sharply into focus in the jewelry business.  In short, the Marange mines are owned and operated, using coercively exploited labor, by the “criminals and murderers” Alan Martin spoke of; and they do so with the tacit consent of Mugabe’s government.   

While the governments of most African states (many of which have earned, in varying degrees, international opprobrium) officially view American and European sanctions as ‘illegal’, the sanctions are currently limiting the shipment of Marange ‘blood diamonds’ into international trade.  Though some in the World Diamond Council argue that, as the important shippers won’t ship Marange diamonds, the sanctions actually make tracking them more difficult, Jewelers of America (an important trade organization) supports the sanctions; and this is telling.  Mugabe may be in denial about the character of his government and its supporters, but the thugs in his entourage are so offensive to the U.S. and E.U. jewelry communities that the sanctions will likely stay in force until significant reforms have ousted Mugabe’s thug supporters from their privileged bastions of power.

Needless to say, I’m proud of our government’s position; and our premier diamond brand, Hearts On Fire, is exclusively sourced from DeBeers - now one of the ‘good guys’.  The Government of Botswana (well regarded for its democratic character - check it out in the CIA World Fact Book) is both an important share holder in DeBeers and the source of about half of its diamonds.  This means our diamonds have been mined with the honest, fairly paid labor deserved by an earnest token of your love.  So check us out on the web at hurstsberwynjewelers.com, then phone us at 708.788.0880 for an appointment with us - the uncommon jeweler and your best source for beautiful diamonds.

P.S. If you have diamonds, broken or unworn pieces of jewelry that you would like to sell, come in and we’ll help you establish their market value; perhaps, we’ll make the best offer to buy them. THEN CHECK OUT OUR MARCH CLEARANCE SALE!

Wagner & Me

Kathy and I went to see the Lyric’s production of ‘Die Meistersinger’ last night and as it promised to be a 6 hour event I was filled with trepidation.  After all, a flight to visit family in California takes a bit less than 5 hours but renders me (at 75) a bit stiff and achey; and a 7 hour flight to London taxes my endurance fully.  Fortunately, intermissions relieved the pain and I was able to walk out without a limp.  Of course other considerations had tempered my enthusiasm for the outing.

I’ve seen all 4 operas of Wagner’s ‘ring cycle’ (about 16 hours!) and I confess that I have found the combination of beautiful music, staggeringly dull plot (a synopsis of which could be printed on the back of a cereal box), warm opera house, comfy seat and dim lights to be a guaranteed soporific.  In fact whenever I think of Wagner, I think of two stories, the first involving English author Evelyn Waugh and the second the late Fritz Reiner, great one time conductor of the Chicago Symphony.

During World War II Waugh volunteered for service in the British Army; and though he was well into his 30s he was fit enough to be accepted into an elite British Commando unit.  As fate would have it, his unit’s first deployment was to cover the British Army’s evacuation of Crete in 1941; and it was there he made his, to me, memorable comment.  As his commanding officer and Evelyn were standing in a slit trench enduring a seemingly endless German bombing attack, the senior officer turned to Evelyn and remarked, “You know, Evelyn, you really have to admire the Germans for their thoroughness” (I hope that quote is accurate).  Waugh thought for a second and replied, “Yes, but rather like Wagner, they do tend to keep it up a bit too long.”  That quote, firmly implanted in my mind and coupled with my experience of the ring, has tended to imbue my approach to Wagner with a cautious willingness to ‘bail out’ if I can endure no more.  

Reiner, on the other hand, was a Wagner enthusiast; but when, on one occasion, he was interviewed about his conducting career, he could not keep himself from telling the following story.  In the late 1930s he’d been conducting Wagner in (I believe) Cleveland and had made an after concert dinner date with friends.  So after the cast and he had taken their bows, he made for the nearest exit - which happened to be through the departing crowd.  While in their midst, he heard the following husband/wife exchange.  Husband, “What time is it?”  “10:45,” she replied.  “No, No,” he said, “Just tell me, is Roosevelt still president?”  A witty comment, but one that added to my Wagnerian angst.  So it was, anticipating pain, suffering, boredom - and a high priced nap - that I went to what my wife had promised me was a ‘one in a lifetime experience’.  Thankfully, she was right; and though the time didn’t quite fly, I enjoyed it thoroughly.  The voices were wonderful, the story amusing and the staging lush - things any theater lover will appreciate; and my experience is illustrative of the ‘post hoc’ fallacy.

It’s the “if this, then that” fallacy which presumes perfect connections and knowledge without either being present.  I had presumed that my prior experience and understandings were sufficient knowledge upon which to base my a priori judgement of a work of art.  In point of fact, it wasn’t; but it raised another question - that of the importance of empirical knowledge to understanding the world around us.  Though I’ve seen a bit of opera over the last quarter of a century, I’ve not seen it all; so I should have known that, above and beyond any particular composer, I delight in a combination of melody, story and performance.  How like appreciating a gem; and how like the internet gem auto didact I was.  I should have known better.

As our business is primarily diamonds, I encounter the ‘self trained’ diamond ‘expert’ on an almost daily basis.  That is, without having ever looked at a diamond, people come to me asking for a, “One carat G, VS1”, all of this, of course, without understanding what such a diamond might look like.  ‘Carat’ is a unit of weight (0.2 grams) and a statement of weight is no guarantee of an appearance of size.  Then there’s color, “G?”  Color grades are ranges, so a ‘G’ can be very close to an ‘F’ at one end or an ‘H’ at the other, and clarity, ‘VS1’ is still another story, as clarity grades are, again, ranges.  Caught in the details of rarity, but not understanding them, these wonderful diamond savants usually bundle ‘carat weight, color, clarity and cut’ together as if they are co-equals in their effects on appearance.  They’re not.   Beauty is a product of what light does when each of these, in its appropriate proportion, makes a diamond ‘sing’ with light, sparkle and, yes, color.  The very best cut diamonds must, like Die Meistersinger, be experienced to be understood, appreciated and treasured.  It is the power to astonish that makes art great.

Herr Wagner, I apologize - and, diamond buyers, as one of you, but now a humbled, reformed and chastened auto didact, you need to come see me.   We love the art of the diamond and we understand it perfectly!  Our only interest is in making the most beautiful diamonds and other fine gems available to you.   So lean on us; check out our website, hurstsberwynjewelers.com, then phone us at 708.788.0880 for an appointment with your perfect gem.  We’re Hursts’ Berwyn Jewelers, not a common jeweler.

P.S. If you have diamonds or broken or unworn pieces of jewelry that you would like to sell, come in and we’ll help you establish their market value; and perhaps, we’ll make the best offer to buy them.

Old But Still in the Game

Yesterday I was buying a diamond for our second line of diamonds; and of course,
cut weighed heavily on my decision. If you’re a newcomer to diamonds, the term
‘cut’ does not refer to the diamond’s shape; it refers to the execution of the cut for
beauty - defined as a combination of brilliance (light return) and sparkle (the prismatic
breakdown of light produced by facets in the diamond’s top).  A beautifully cut diamond
stands out because it presents a bright and  'colorful' play of light.

The staff had narrowed my choices down to two diamonds that were, in many respects,
comparable; but one weighed in at a carat while the other was a little shy of a carat. The
carat was more expensive by virtue of its ‘cost per carat‘ (just like buying something
sold by the pound); and despite its marginally higher cost, I knew that the its
weight would most likely help it sell faster. On the other hand, I felt (and always
do) that I owe our clientele the benefit of my experience in selecting diamonds.
Unlike the neophyte diamond buyer, who often reads a diamond’s physical attributes
as the key to understanding its price, I had to look at them, without prejudice,
to establish their value - important to me because price and value are two different
things. Price is determined by the market while value comes from within. It is the
emotional content that accompanies a gift or possession; and I am convinced that
beautiful emotions are best expressed by beautiful diamonds. So I looked at them;
and at little more than a glance, I was charmed by the slightly smaller diamond. It
‘popped’ while the larger one did not. Then it was time to look at their paperwork.

The common sense object of cutting diamonds is to take a ‘rock’ and make it beautiful;
their paperwork (Gemological Institute of America Gem Trade Laboratory
grading reports) would tell me whether my old eyes, as a judge of diamond beauty,
had failed me. Nope, I still have it. The smaller had been judged ‘Excellent’ in cut
whereas the larger diamond had been judged ‘Very Good’. The difference may
sound small; but unless you know how to read them, certificates can be deceptive
that way. The GIA laboratory’s cut grade is a statement of a diamond’s brilliance;
that is, its ability to return the light that enters its top to the viewer’s eye. The
smaller diamond’s cut grade of ‘excellent’ is a statement of superior brilliance and vivid display;
the larger’s cut grade of ‘very good’ means that it falls a bit short of the lab’s standards
for brilliance. Notice, please, that I have somewhat qualified, a laboratory’s report
of cut grade. In point of fact, I find two problems with current laboratory cut
grades.

Laboratory statements of cut grade are statements of white light return, only; so
while they do measure brilliance, they say nothing about sparkle. You have to look
at them to see ‘sparkle’. Beyond that, laboratory cut standards have been made in
observance of the best practices of the best diamond cutters, but not of the diamonds
that are the best in cut. You see, more than 99% of the world’s diamonds
are cut on equipment derivative of the very first (about A.D. 1475) diamond polishing
wheel, not the most technically advanced cutting equipment. Using traditional
equipment, the angles of a diamond’s facets are all at slight variance with one another;
using the most technically advanced equipment, the angles are exact. The
difference, when it comes to brilliance, is obvious; but if diamonds are to be sold, it
is equally obvious that gem laboratories have to gear their cut reports to the best
practices of the vast majority of diamond cutters. So it is that diamonds that are
observably the best in cut are lumped together with those that are merely the best
of laboratory standards.

If you’re still curious about the technical difference between the two diamonds, it
is this; the average angle of that smaller diamond’s pavilion facets (the ‘bottom’
ones) is .4º closer to the ‘ideal’ for light return than the average angle of the larger
diamond - a difference you can see. Of course, it is a traditionally cut diamond,
not a ‘high tech’ diamond; so it has to be part of our second line of diamonds. Our
first line of diamonds are our Hearts On Fire diamonds. They are cut on the most
technically advanced equipment in use today; so the angles of its cut are both more
accurate than those of a traditionally cut diamond and far closer to the ‘ideal’ for
light return. They’re so good that looking at them almost causes eye-strain; and
they’re available here at Hursts’ Berwyn Jewelers. Check out our website,
hurstsberwynjewelers.com, then, for nothing less than beautiful diamonds, phone
us at 708.788.0880 for an appointment. We're not a common jeweler.

P.S. If you have diamonds or broken or unworn pieces of jewelry that you would like to sell, come in and we’ll help you establish their market value; and perhaps, we’ll make the best offer to buy them.