National Shutdowns have put the lid on most shows.
Welcome to the GemologyOnline.com Forum
A non-profit Forum for the exchange of gemological ideas
It is currently Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:01 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Survey Results
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:05 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 11:24 am
Posts: 7506
Location: Rome, Italy
done :D

_________________
GemmoRaman-532 - GemmoFTIR - GemmoSphere - EXA


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Survey Results
PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:15 am 
Offline
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 83
Location: San Francisco/Holland
Interesting results. My 2 cents:

1) consumers do not always prefer "the real deal" (i.e. untreated) over treated as is suggested in this thread by other consumers. That may hold for gem lovers but many in Gen X and Y use jewelry to express lifestyle or image or use gems to personalize/customize i.e. gems are a design element providing color for example. A great new example is mass-customization by http://www.gemvara.com. The only role gems play is to provide color in a design.

2) It doesn't mean consumers want to be misled. The fear of many jewelers not to disclose or disclose in an indirect way is misplaced. They want to know, they just don't think it's always relevant to them. See the success of teleshopping: treatments often sold as sexy or cool.

3) I am surprised to see the response of the trade on who's responsible for certs. For gems above a certain price level I think it's entirely the responsibility of the trade to have gems accompanied by certs and with AGL's cheaper offer (if that is still available) there's no reason not to, especially considering gems are used in jewelry, jewelry can be a gift, insurance issues etc etc.

4) I have a problem with your conclusions. Assuming 50% of your sample is consumer, 50 % is trade. Assuming there's no population bias or any other sampling error. Then your margin of error lies in the 7 - 10% range easily.

Check: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

confidence intervals do not change much if the population is larger than 20,000 so I used that number (and considering there are millions of consumers interested in buying jewelry/gems). With a sample of 100, your confidence interval is actually 9.8%. Even if all 200 were consumers the margin would still be 6.9%. In the case of taking the full sample as "consumer" you definitely have a huge population bias thus increasing your margin of error tremendously.

Either way, It would be wise to take a minimum margin of error of 10% and therefore most of your comparison do not point to real differences but just lie within the margin of error of each statistic.

_________________
Patrick Slavenburg
co-founder and internet samurai http://www.farlang.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Survey Results
PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:35 am 
Offline
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 83
Location: San Francisco/Holland
michael_e wrote:


My problem with this is that the reaction against treatments in sapphire, (or ruby...all of corundum), has spilled over into other gems whose treatments are either much more benign, are undetectable or have been accepted for a very long time. Everyone wants "full disclosure", but how do you provide full disclosure when you have no idea what's been done to a particular gem? From my point of view that's easy, you just tell people that if they can be treated then they probably have been.


I find this an excellent attitude.

_________________
Patrick Slavenburg
co-founder and internet samurai http://www.farlang.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Survey Results
PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:39 pm 
Offline
Valued Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:20 pm
Posts: 139
Location: Australia
These results are interesting to say the least.

We're all consumers at some point in the supply chain. It is what your dollar and your customers affordable bank balance that commands and fuels production for which ever particular product is chosen. Treated or Untreated.

Personally I steer clear from treated material like the black plague, fortunately I have the luck of a direct supply from an Australian mine. Which is producing corundum, few pieces I've posted around here over the last year. Cut on the fields, by myself or overseas.

The global marketing is broken for gemstones and jewellery in differentiating between natural and treated. Go pickup any jeweller letterbox leaflets and you'll find in the small print hidden away about disclosures that you would need to get out your loupe to read. Basically that screams out "I"M FAKE" or undergone surgery. Then again you won't get marketing through this method on your bigger ticket items.

Those that know, can find the real deal. Those that don't get preyed upon.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Survey Results
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:54 pm 
Offline
Active Member

Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:02 pm
Posts: 56
Location: San Diego, California, USA
Patrick wrote:
michael_e wrote:


My problem with this is that the reaction against treatments in sapphire, (or ruby...all of corundum), has spilled over into other gems whose treatments are either much more benign, are undetectable or have been accepted for a very long time. Everyone wants "full disclosure", but how do you provide full disclosure when you have no idea what's been done to a particular gem? From my point of view that's easy, you just tell people that if they can be treated then they probably have been.


I find this an excellent attitude.


How does the (apparently undetectable) irradiating to produce yellow Beryl fit in to this topic? Do prices languish because one has to assume any specimen is treated, or is yellow Beryl such a minor player that different market dynamics apply?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Survey Results
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:59 am 
Offline
Valued Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:36 am
Posts: 278
Patrick,

Sure, statistically 200+ participants are not enough to represent the world population, or even only those who own a gemstone (which may be a good percentage). The error margins will be high but I feel the directions are well visible.

Also, obviously, an online survey will attract only online people. We did reach out to B&M traders but even they needed to go online to participate.

_________________
Edward Bristol
http://www.WildFishGems.com & http://www.EdwardBristol.com
Exclusively Untreated Gemstones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Survey Results
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:40 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:22 pm
Posts: 20417
Location: San Francisco
I found the questions in the survey worded in a rather biased way.

The questions seemed like they were asking for a judgment call which was arbitrary at best.

There are too many variables in the "treatment" equation to sum it up with 10 questions, IMHO.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Survey Results
PostPosted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:33 pm 
Offline
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:56 am
Posts: 1255
As I understand it, some treatments (notably heat/irradiation) might not be detected, even in the lab. But still these can make shit look like caviar.
Shit being enhanced for cheap sure looks good, but it's still shit (if you think about it, synthetics also look good). Enhanced shit is worth the price of shit plus the price of treatment (which is insignificant). Which is to say, based on rarity of the material, it's not worth a buck or two.
The problem is that there's no way to taste if what you're buying/selling is shit or caviar. It's like playing the lottery, but the winner will never be announced.
Bad press for the rocks.

...or I might be a little too much of a purist, reasoning only in terms of rarity (you know, I'm a born collector, collectors are fanatics).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Gemology Style ported to phpBB3 by Christian Bullock