Are pieces worth the prices

[TheManWithNoName]

I’ve never seen a natural red diamond. Gems sell treated ones.

I suspect nobody other than millionaires have if there's only 30 in the world

 

[Nico]

I have some of the SI and IF diamonds. They are sparkly but as they are tiny pave stones in small carat weighs, you can’t really notice the difference between an I1. I got them on sale during breakfast wheels or for 25% off, so never full price.

The clearer burmese rubies that have been on sale are great value I think.

 

[Nico]

I saw those clover diamond things and thought they were very pretty but just too small. A lovely present for a teen though. I too hate the Winston things. Very ugly. Just trading on the name.i can’t remember if they r overpriced as I don’t watch their shows. I think Gems 9 ct diamonds are not quite as bad as TJC but mostly because TJCs are truly awful. I don’t buy anything with resale in mind in fact my probably unrealistic hope is that they will never be sold. However I don’t like to feel I have been conned.

They are pricing the quatrefoil designs higher than other diamond designs with the same clarity and carat weight.

 

[Always complaining]

I have some of the SI and IF diamonds. They are sparkly but as they are tiny pave stones in small carat weighs, you can’t really notice the difference between an I1. I got them on sale during breakfast wheels or for 25% off, so never full price.

The clearer burmese rubies that have been on sale are great value I think.

I have found with the very tiny diamonds it’s just the general sparkle I notice. I notice a difference in sparkle between SI and I but I don’t notice a difference between SI and IF. However on that I’ve got to say I’ve also noticed they are not giving any colour now for their if diamonds and they are in 9 ct so I wonder is the colour lower grade. The normal prices are very much inflated so it is necessary to get a good discount. It’s very disappointing to see Jeff not giving the very good discounts he once did. I still watch him but usually go to bed before it’s over.

 

[Always complaining]

They are pricing the quatrefoil designs higher than other diamond designs with the same clarity and carat weight.

Yes I’ve noticed that. There was an upsurge in popularity last year for quatrefoil and they are taking advantage of it. However the ones pointed out by AndyW are that little bit better. Unfortunately they are also very small. I don’t know why they do that . A pendant needs to be bigger than a ring in order to be seen.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

It’s very disappointing to see Jeff not giving the very good discounts he once did.

This just sums up Gemporia these days. There are barely any worthwhile sales or discounts these days.

Everything at Gemporia these days just screams out "we want your money".

 

[AndyW]

Everything at Gemporia these days just screams out "we want your money".

It does. It's quite noticeable. Oddly high prices for odd things too. Three examples from live auctions yesterday and today. Poppy Hadkinson's first wheel just now didn't have a 9K gold piece under £200 but most were over £300.

A standard 10ct Ethiopian opal 18K pendant was £3999 overnight, marketed by Lindsay Carr & DT in the usual carefully worded spiel, presented from the Gemporia museum.

There's a Zambian amethyst show next. Plenty of pretty, wearable Zambian, Lusaka or Kenyan amethyst from TJC and Gemporia available on eBay at prices that they should be - most in silver. [Edit - wrong, it's Emerald but it's still true about the price that they want now for a lighter Zambian amethyst in a cheese wire gold band is crazy. A Gemporia ring from 2015 is better looking, richer colour and better metal weight.]

 

[AndyW]

They are pricing the quatrefoil designs higher than other diamond designs with the same clarity and carat weight.

Yes and their shell, mother of pearl silver pieces have been eye-wateringly pricey in my opinion.

 

[AndyW]

I give up. Utterly bonkers, isn't it or is it me?

 

[TheManWithNoName]

I give up. Utterly bonkers, isn't it or is it me?
View attachment 31782

It's not you. Those prices seem ridiculous for cheesewire settings, Zircon rather than Diamonds as accent stones, and Emeralds that look light in colour for that price range.

It begs the question, who is paying these prices? I can only assume is those with little knowledge or Gemporia loyalists that will stick by them no matter what they do.

Has anyone seen the prices on the so-called 'daily deals' page of the Gem Collector website recently? Some of the prices must have either been picked out of a hat at random, or theres a serious glitch on the price automation on their website.

£2849 for this 'Indicolite' that isn't even Indicolite. It's clearly green Tourmaline. Bonkers

 

[TheManWithNoName]

£154 for this! It's not even natural - it's irradiated!

It's worth no more than a tenner!

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Seriously?

 

[Ostrichkeeper]

I was swearing at the TV when Poppy was doing the Paraiba tourmaline, ridiculously overpriced.

 

[AndyW]

Their camera people usually make stones look much better than the reality.

I want to pick up on your point about camera work because this is something else I've noticed over the last four or five years too and, a couple of times, it's stopped me buying. Gems TV used to be quite proud of its rules on lighting and filters in the studio and they were right to be so - then. The old Rocks & Co deployed lighting patterns and sparkle filters in a really obvious way. I think TJC still does this too.

And then we had a period from Gemporia where the dreaded light box videos came in during their presentations. It got to the point where entire item presentations were voiceovers on the video and you never saw the item in the studio on the hand, neckline or on an earring stick. I think they noticed online complaints about this and cut it back.

However, if you look carefully, sometimes the lighting differs between a small patch on the studio table and the presenter. That's fine, of course, when the item is the focus and most of the time it doesn't really change the look of the item. But that's not always the case. Sometimes - to your point about stones looking much better - the presenter will draw the item back a bit into the darker part of the lighting, which enhances the colour depth. David Troth, with his infamous pen light, will always say that the studio won't show the true colours, etc. How damn true that is!

Highly dispersive gems and those with light-dependant spectrum colour play, such as opal, or other optical phenomena will always be problematic because cameras are designed to see colour "breakouts" as problems to resolve but this is used as an excuse far too much and technology has moved on considerably in the last ten years.

The lighting shenanigans isn't confined to Gemporia either. It arrived on Gem Collector when they moved from the basic studio two years ago to the post-Alex McKay setup. There, it's even more obvious - and I'm not taking about dimming the lights for opals or UV presentations.

 

[AndyW]

Has anyone seen the prices on the so-called 'daily deals' page of the Gem Collector website recently? Some of the prices must have either been picked out of a hat at random, or theres a serious glitch on the price automation on their website.

I gave up looking at this years ago. It's a real shocker. Another example from today attached. Jim sold a 90ct labradorite stone on Friday, exactly same shape, for £40.

Their website isn't much better.

£154 for this! It's not even natural - it's irradiated!

It's worth no more than a tenner!

Here's the inconsistency on the irradiated fluorite. Image 2 has more of the stupid "start" prices but, on the same page..image 3. And, yes, they are normally £10.

Just shows a complete lack of interest or care. Winging it as a commercial entity only takes you so far until your customer base starts to think you're taking the p*ss and insulting their intelligence.

 

[Always complaining]

I want to pick up on your point about camera work because this is something else I've noticed over the last four or five years too and, a couple of times, it's stopped me buying. Gems TV used to be quite proud of its rules on lighting and filters in the studio and they were right to be so - then. The old Rocks & Co deployed lighting patterns and sparkle filters in a really obvious way. I think TJC still does this too.

And then we had a period from Gemporia where the dreaded light box videos came in during their presentations. It got to the point where entire item presentations were voiceovers on the video and you never saw the item in the studio on the hand, neckline or on an earring stick. I think they noticed online complaints about this and cut it back.

However, if you look carefully, sometimes the lighting differs between a small patch on the studio table and the presenter. That's fine, of course, when the item is the focus and most of the time it doesn't really change the look of the item. But that's not always the case. Sometimes - to your point about stones looking much better - the presenter will draw the item back a bit into the darker part of the lighting, which enhances the colour depth. David Troth, with his infamous pen light, will always say that the studio won't show the true colours, etc. How damn true that is!

Highly dispersive gems and those with light-dependant spectrum colour play, such as opal, or other optical phenomena will always be problematic because cameras are designed to see colour "breakouts" as problems to resolve but this is used as an excuse far too much and technology has moved on considerably in the last ten years.

The lighting shenanigans isn't confined to Gemporia either. It arrived on Gem Collector when they moved from the basic studio two years ago to the post-Alex McKay setup. There, it's even more obvious - and I'm not taking about dimming the lights for opals or UV presentations.

Agree completely. I know nothing about photography lighting etc but I’ve often said to myself that they have got to be doing something deceptive. Another thing is the dazzling light on stones. Sometimes it gets to the stage where u can’t see the item at all.

 

[Ant7t]

It's not you. Those prices seem ridiculous for cheesewire settings, Zircon rather than Diamonds as accent stones, and Emeralds that look light in colour for that price range.

It begs the question, who is paying these prices? I can only assume is those with little knowledge or Gemporia loyalists that will stick by them no matter what they do.

Has anyone seen the prices on the so-called 'daily deals' page of the Gem Collector website recently? Some of the prices must have either been picked out of a hat at random, or theres a serious glitch on the price automation on their website.

£2849 for this 'Indicolite' that isn't even Indicolite. It's clearly green Tourmaline. Bonkers

View attachment 31783

I know I've said a variation of this before, but it's always been said that indicolite is blue. Is there something in 'the industry' that has changed that definition?

 

[Nico]

Agree completely. I know nothing about photography lighting etc but I’ve often said to myself that they have got to be doing something deceptive. Another thing is the dazzling light on stones. Sometimes it gets to the stage where u can’t see the item at all.

I wrote in to the producer during a recent show to ask to see the damn ring on a presenters hand. They were just looping the pre record while the presenter was sitting there wearing it. The cameras are capable of zooming right in but they rarely do, or they zoom in and it’s not in focus!? Wtf?

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Is there something in 'the industry' that has changed that definition?

Yes, Jake Trotter.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

The cameras are capable of zooming right in but they rarely do, or they zoom in and it’s not in focus!? Wtf?

Maybe there's a reason why they don't want to zoom in on the stones........