Some jewelers will list the weight of a diamond strictly in fractions. For example, you might ask them the weight of a diamond and they will say it’s % of a carat. Your next question should be: “Well, is it exactly 75 points or not?” Many jewelers will call anything from 65 points to 75 points a % carat diamond. Those are the same jewelers who will call any diamond that weighs 90 to 100 points one carat. Jewelers that round up the weight of a diamond are breaking the law. You’ll notice that these jewelers will never round a diamond down-for example, calling an 85 point diamond % carat. They’ll never do it. The way to make sure the diamond you may purchase is the weight the jeweler says it is is to ask the jeweler to please weigh the diamond in front of you on an electronic scale. If the diamond he’s showing you is already in a setting and he says he can’t weigh it, don’t buy that diamond. You should only purchase a loose diamond that can be weighed.

The 50% Off Sale

It’s a beautiful Sunday morning; you’re flipping through your three-pound newspaper reading about everything on sale from cookware to automobiles. Then you see it: Your local jeweler is running a 50 percent off sale!! Wow! You are excited! You hop in your car, drive out there, and make what you believe is an incredible buy. It isn’t till a couple of weeks later, while you’re strolling through the mall, that you see the same item you purchased in another store selling at regular price and their regular price is cheaper than what you paid! You’re furious; you thought you bought your piece of jewelry at 50 percent of a regular price. The reality is that you didn’t. Many jewelers run fake sales. They take the cost of a piece of jewelry, multiply it by four, and then take 50 percent off that price. For example, let’s say the jeweler has a diamond ring that cost him $1,000. If he takes the cost and multiplies it times four that makes $4,000. He then tells you that $4,000 is the regular price, takes 50 percent off of that, and says he will sell the diamond to you for $2,000. Now most people’s reaction is that they’re saving $2,000. The reality is the average jewelry store has a 100 percent markup. Diamonds said to be worth $4,000 would normally only sell for $2,000. So when you think that you are saving $2,000 you’re really paying full retail. The way to determine whether you’re really getting a sale price or not is to compare their sale price to the prices listed under “Step Two: Know Prices.” If their original price is more than double the price listed, then they’re playing games with you. For example, let’s say you go to Joe’s Jewelry Store and he’s got a one carat VS1 G on sale at $9,600 from $19,200. The price I list in “Step Two” shows that a one carat VS1 G should sell wholesale for $4,800, and we discussed that maximum retail is double that price. That means the most the diamond should sell for would be $9,600. So if we bought at Joe’s and thought we were saving $9,600, we still really just paid maximum retail.

Bait and Switch

Bait and switch is a term that actually has been around for a long time. It refers to anyone who runs an advertising special on a particular item and when you go to their store to buy it they’re suddenly sold out and will attempt to sell you something else. Don’t fall for this old trick. Many jewelers hope that since you already have made a trip out to their establishment and were ready to buy their advertised item then they probably can talk you into taking something else home. Don’t let impatience cloud your decision. Many people get so excited about taking something home that they end up buying something they really don’t want. Remember, grade each jeweler with the J.Q.S., and then if they rank high enough use a scratch sheet to check each diamond. Make sure it’s the quality you want, and then compare their selling price to the prices quoted in the book and see how good a deal you are getting. Remember, if you work hard enough there’s no reason you can’t find the right diamond at the right price.

Finally! You’re reviewed all the jewelers, graded all the diamonds, and found the diamond you want. You lay down your cash and ask for the diamond to be set. You come back the next day and pick up your ring, and you’re happy. A few days later, you decide to have the ring independently appraised, and find out that the diamond you picked up is not the same diamond you looked at originally. The jeweler has done the old “switcharoo.” You then go back and confront the jeweler and he says that you must have switched the diamond. Well, you are stuck! Now the way you prevent this from happening is after you find the diamond you like and before the diamond is mounted, have the diamond plotted. What this means is have the jeweler show you where the inclusions or blemishes are in the diamond and have him plot them down on a drawing. Keep this drawing with you. Then when you return to pick up the diamond, review the diamond in the setting and look for the same characteristics that you had plotted. If they match, you have the right diamond.

The Sandbagger

If you’ve followed all my instructions, you should feel secure enough that after the purchase you won’t feel the need to go to an independent appraiser to double-check how you did. But if you do, please watch out for the sandbagger! The sandbagger is someone who lies to you and tells you that you’ve been taken, that the diamond you’ve purchased is not worth what you’ve paid. Now why would the appraiser want to make you feel bad? So that he can recommend where you really should buy your diamonds! And you can bet that if he can convince you to return the diamond you’ve purchased and buy one from the place he recommends he’ll get a kickback from them. In many cases the appraiser will even say, “You got taken, and you should have bought from me!” If you ever want to have the diamond double-checked, send it to GIA in New York City or in Santa Monica, California. You can always get an unbiased opinion from them.

Off-Makes

What is the #1 problem with diamonds? Can’t guess? Well, it’s that 75 percent of all the diamonds on the market are poorly proportioned. (A poorly proportioned diamond is referred to as an off-make.) I can’t stress this point enough! No matter how white a diamond is or how clean it is or even how big it is, it will only have maximum sparkle, fire, and brilliance if it’s cut correctly. Please always check to see if the diamond is well proportioned. Follow the P.Q.S. and you will stay out of trouble and have a diamond that sparkles and is pretty forever.

Fluorescence is a diamond’s reaction to ultraviolet (UV) light. Some diamonds glow different colors, when viewed under a UV light. If a diamond glows strong blue, this diamond may look duller in sunlight. It is important to know if your diamond is fluorescent or not. Always check a potential diamond purchase under a UV light to see if it glows. If it does, you may not want to purchase it. Diamonds with strong fluorescence can be worth up to 20 percent less than those without it.

“For example, the term blue-white is a misused term describing a diamond as being white with a hint of blue color. A “blue-white” diamond really is a white or whitish diamond with blue fluorescence. Since fluorescence is not a desired feature, a diamond described as “blue-white” should be avoided. “Blue-white” diamonds will be discussed further in Step Six, under the heading “Tricks of the Trade.”

The Magical One Carat

If I were to mention a corporation named DeBeers many people might say they’ve never heard of them. But if I were to say, “A diamond is forever,” or “Say you’d marry her all over again with a diamond anniversary ring,” or “A one carat diamond is one in a million,” or finally, “Is two months’ salary too much to spend for something that lasts forever?” you have probably heard one of these lines. They all come from DeBeers, the big diamond conglomerate that supplies most of the world with diamonds. Through great marketing they have created the one carat diamond as the minimum size to have. That is part of the reason why there is a substantial price increase once a good diamond reaches one carat. However, good one carat diamonds are literally one in a million. Don’t forget, though, just because a diamond is large does not mean it will be expensive. By the way, the average diamond purchased in the United States is 38 points or a little larger than 1/3 of a carat.

The recipient of phony benevolence is as guilty as the giver if he accepts what is offered. The recipient must object, thanking the giver but firmly stating that he prefers to determine the nature of the gift or favor. If the pseudo-benevolent spouse is really trying to please or cooperate, he will accept the change, for if he doesn’t he demonstrates that he was indeed being a dictator. If he does not accept the suggestions, the spouse may have to be insistent.

Therefore, the attacked spouse (the one considered to be in the wrong) should insist that the natural consequences of making the suggested change be considered. He should point out that a change on his part will also require a change on the part of the other spouse, and should attempt to project what these changes would be like. The question then would be, are these projected changes desirable or undesirable? Are the husband and wife even prepared to handle them?

For example, a man who is well informed and is respected for his obvious intelligence may feel that his wife should be better read and better able to hold her own in a discussion. It is true that if his wife became more intellectually competent, they might share more together, but is he willing to pay the price? If she sharpened her powers, perhaps the man would find his own self-esteem and sense of importance, derived from being the “smart” one in the family, suffering greatly. Is he really prepared for her competition? Can he relinquish his position in the spotlight at social functions? Is he ready to help his wife contribute to conversations by listening intelligently to her, or does he expect her to attempt to shine despite his continuing efforts to appear smarter than she is?

In other words, we are urging the spouse who is told to change to evaluate this request in terms of how it will affect the other partner, and to insist that change involves a faint effort and is not up to him alone. Equally, the critical spouse is urged to evaluate his request in terms of what corresponding changes will be necessary on his part and to refrain from asking for changes to which he cannot adapt.

This concept may, at first, be hard to grasp because it is completely antithetical to our usual way of thinking about marriage. We assume that if we wish our spouse to change in a particular way, he will-if he is loving-immediately attempt to oblige. But actually, in a marriage most of the important behavior patterns (we are not speaking of such minor annoying habits as dropping ashes or leaving hair in the wash basin) are products of the relationship and not just manifestations of traits peculiar to one spouse.

Consider, for example, a gentleman we know who has become increasingly vociferous in his comments about his wife’s slovenly housekeeping. He neglects to mention to his friends, during his numerous complaints, that his wife accompanies him in many activities (far more than the usual). For example, they often go sailing together, they hunt, and they fly a private plane in which she is the navigator. Since there is not enough money for a maid, the housework just remains undone.

The question here is why the condition of the house is so important to the husband. Is he simply a person of compulsive neatness, or is he protesting that his wife’s role is becoming too close to his own and that he is uncomfortable about this closeness and would like to push her back to a more “feminine” role? If she simply takes the blame for the untidy house, they will never face the question of the shared-role conflict, which may be the important issue in their marriage. As long as he is free to complain about a slovenly house he has the feeling that he is asserting his control over her, while at the same time nothing can actually happen, so there is no danger of an upsetting change.

The spouse who is being criticized in this case might appropriately wonder why her husband doesn’t pitch in more and help clean up the house since it seems important to him and since it also seems important to him to have her share in his many activities. Does she sense that he requires this kind of complaint in order to keep their marriage workable? To test this hypothesis she might propose that during the next several weeks she give up all her other activities and concentrate on pleasing her husband, by keeping the house immaculate. If the husband’s complaint is functional-that is, if it is related to the marital system and does not simply reflect his liking for cleanliness-some other source for complaint will emerge to take the place of the no-longer-dirty house. When it becomes evident that the complaining is related to a larger relationship pattern, the couple is in a position to discuss the larger problems with some chance of making basic changes to improve the relationship, and can learn to avoid repetitious arguments over topical and insignificant issues.

It is important now to take a closer look at the behavior of the spouse who asks for changes in the other by complaining. Such an individual contributes to the other’s unwanted behavior by permitting it and complaining afterward. The tendency to nag and complain instead of refusing to tolerate unwanted behavior is widespread in marriages in our culture. A husband may accuse his wife of being inconsiderate because she repeatedly interrupts him. But how often will he prevent this behavior at the time it occurs by saying, “You interrupted me, Jane. Please let me finish what I was saying”? If this didn’t work, he might simply get up and leave the room, saying, “You apparently aren’t interested in what I’m trying to tell you now. When you do want to hear it, let me know.” A few such episodes would get the point across quickly and without unnecessary anger. This type of behavior may seem harsh and rude, but it does work. The practice of nagging and complaining does not, because it never deals explicitly with the unwanted behavior at the time it occurs. However, people prefer complaining just because it is futile: if they actually enforced a change in the other’s behavior, they would have to change their own behavior as well. If Bill is firmer than he used to be about Jane’s interruptions, he must also give up the privilege of interrupting her, or else risk having her walk out on him in her turn.

Mary may harbor burning resentment toward John because he makes jokes or sarcastic remarks about her intelligence or physical appearance in front of acquaintances. Yet if this behavior on John’s part continues over a long period of time, it is a sure bet that she has done nothing to stop it. Perhaps she smiles or laughs with embarrassment in response to these remarks, or perhaps she counterattacks with nasty remarks of her own about John’s messy living habits, his bald spot, and so on. Later, when they are alone once more, Mary may just sulk, or she may explode and tell John his behavior makes her furious, so that their nastiness escalates into a fight, or mutual withdrawal, or whatever. If Mary really wants to put a stop to John’s unkind actions, she must be willing to change her own behavior. The next time they are with friends and John is insulting, Mary might say, in front of the friends, «John, your remarks are humiliating and inappropriate. I suspect they make our friends as uncomfortable as they do me. If you have something to tell me, wait until we get home and can discuss it in privacy.” If John persists in his behavior, Mary can rightfully say, “I asked you once to stop your unpleasant remarks, John. I won’t argue with you here and embarrass our friends, but neither will 1 tolerate this kind of talk. I’m taking a cab home and 111 see you there later.” One or two such confrontations evidencing Mary’s determination and willingness to change her own behavior in relation to his undesirable behavior will force John to make a corresponding change.

Again, the reader may shudder at such tough, harsh recommendations, but marriage is so important, and so difficult to make workable, that there is no place for half-truths and half-hearted actions.

One of the most useful ways for spouses to correct unwanted behavior patterns and improve a marriage is always to act on the assumption that their actions are bilateral, not unilateral. There is no action involving them both to which they haven’t both contributed. Therefore, any change must be made by both.

If one spouse is attempting unilaterally to change the other, who refuses to admit to being a disaster seeker, he must be willing to take a chance on being a troublemaker.

Basically, the disaster seeker is afraid of being abandoned. He is unconsciously afraid that the other spouse will grow apart from him, becoming too independent or successful. By employing the gloom-and-danger ploy, the disaster seeker attempts to keep the other spouse in line. Thus the spouse who would cure the situation must convince the other that this technique won’t work and is harmful to the relationship, and he must do the convincing by means of action, not by complaining or nagging.

The approach is Simple. The healer chooses an area in which there has been past evidence of disaster seeking. He makes it clear that the spouse is welcome to attend this convention, fly on this trip, or whatever, but that the plans will be carried out regardless of what the disaster seeker does or says.

A variation open to the healer is to invite the disaster seeker on a short vacation that he knows from their past experience should be pleasant. However, he must stipulate: “If you so much as make one negative comment about the trip, 1 will end it.” If this stipulation is to be effective, it must be carried out the first time the disaster seeker utters an unpleasant remark, even if the result is that they return home a half hour after departure. This action must then be carried out so that the message is, “I am not going to desert you, but 1 am going ahead with these plans that are important to me.”

The first few times, the disaster seeker may pout and be sullen upon the other spouse’s return, but this reaction is to be expected. If it does not deter the spouse from his course of action, it will disappear.

If both spouses agree that there is a need for remedying a disaster-seeking attitude, and will work together, it can be accomplished easily. Two techniques are employed.

First, the disaster seeker accepts punishment each time he commits the sin of announcing disaster. In this way he is made aware of the frequency with which he makes remarks of this sort.

Ordinarily, it is easy to overlook gloomy predictions because if they are incorrect (as they usually are) they are soon forgotten; only if a disaster occurs is the prediction recounted over and over. As Disraeli pointed out, it is easier to be critical than to be correct. The punishment can be of any sort as long as it is genuinely annoying-for example, having to set the alarm and do twenty push-ups at three in the morning, or (for the husband) doing the dishes for a week.

Second, the disaster seeker is required by the other spouse to predict everything (in detail) that will go wrong with the projected activity. The other spouse notes these remarks down and have the forecaster initial them. After the event, the couple reviews the list together, checking the accuracy of the predictions. Usually, the disaster seeker cannot bring about the fulfillment of all his gloomy prophesies.

What has to be recognized about the disaster seeker in order to cure him is that, much like the average neurotic described by Freud, “he makes worse the very thing he seeks to cure.” The disaster seeker may have a temporary feeling of independent security when he is able to exert control over his spouse’s actions by the use of dire predictions, but he also loses, since he gives up the privilege and pleasure of being able to be dependent, to count on someone else whom he has placed in a position of authority or confidence. He cannot downgrade his spouse without reducing his own chances of finding succor in the marriage.

By this we mean that when one spouse is making a complaint, he should not allow the other to answer with a cross complaint. The two complaints simply cancel each other out, and nothing has been settled. If Shirley also has a complaint, let her bring it up on her own time, not while Harry is asking for a change.

This is a simple but important marital imperative. Never break this rule, for each infraction invites another infraction I remind each other, hold up a hand and say “Beep-Beep”! Do anything, but don’t exchange complaints at the same time!

Harry should be firm about his right to complain even if Shirley appears not to recognize that she is cross complaining. Consciously or unconsciously, the cross complainer is aware of the nature of his tactics. If he refuses to admit what he is doing, more stringent methods of confrontation must be employed. A simple yet effective device is the following. When one spouse has identified the other as a cross complainer but the other will not cease the practice, the first spouse should announce: “I think you are capable of recognizing my right to complain on my own time! The next time you cut into one of my complaints, I’m simply going to leave the room. If you follow me, I’ll simply leave the house.” This apparently rude behavior is very effective because the cross complainer needs an audience to reassure himself that the other’s complaint has been stifled by his cross complaint. When there is nobody in the room, the transaction is incomplete; the cross complainer is frustrated, and therefore in a better position to see the destructive nature of his tactics.

The “healthy” spouse insists that the “sick” spouse visit a competent physician, and accompanies him on the visit. If he is already under a physician’s care, arrangements must be made for a consultation with a specialist not known socially by either husband or wife. This is necessary because the family physician too can be fooled, as a result of his wish to be helpful and of his own doubts. He may unwittingly be helping the “victim” to preserve the “illness.”

If a clean bill of health is forthcoming, the complaining spouse must be forced to live in a way befitting a healthy person. If some chronic physical condition is present, clear rules on diet, the amount of exercise permitted, and so forth, should be obtained from the physician, so that the “sick” spouse cannot exaggerate the degree of his illness. It is not unkind to push a spouse into good health. It is far less kind to nourish and encourage illness by falling for such a destructive technique.

One of our colleagues was upset by his wife’s constant use of vague aches and pains to avoid any activity which did not interest her, and decided to do something about it. First he took time off from work to have his wife thoroughly checked at the Mayo Clinic. The physicians reported her as “healthy in all respects.” When they returned home, he made careful arrangements for his wife’s financial care, and moved out of the house, telling his wife that he would not return because her imaginary illnesses were too much for him.

After several weeks the spouse recognized that he meant what he said. She began to play golf and engage in other activities possible for a healthy female. Nearly a year, and one girl friend, later the husband invited her to go on a trip to Europe with him. When they returned after six weeks, they moved to a different house together. Now, some ten years later, they have apparently passed the critical years and the marriage has prospered. While it is unusual for a spouse to be so direct, action of the sort taken by this husband is the basis for many cures.

Similarly, in marriage there is no miraculous method for carving out a relationship without occasional struggles. One cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs, and one cannot make a marital relationship without breaking some of the other spouse’s expectations and built-in preconceptions, and forestalling his very human tendency to try for a foot when a few inches have just been offered.

In the case of Eloise and John, the issues John raises are never dealt with directly by Eloise; when a conversation ends John never knows whether or not he has scored a point, whether or not his wife has understood him.

It is important to remember that Eloise doesn’t recognize what she is doing, As far as she is concerned, she is attempting to mollify an unreasonable man and to delay his demands by placating him. Her manner suggests to John that she will do anything he desires, but somehow or other, she usually manages to change the subject under discussion, and she never fulfills her implied promise to do what he wants. By behaving inconsiderately while appearing to be considerate, thoughtful, and patient, she is slowly driving John to distraction: he never knows definitely what he can realistically expect from her.

This pattern of behavior is a tried and true one, used in diplomacy when one nation is trying to stall another on some urgent matter. Attempting to drag out an incomplete transaction, the nation will counter the other’s proposal with something like, “But do you really think that such a thing is moral?” or “Please define precisely what you mean by peace.”

The incomplete transaction is a serious form of faulty communication. The reader will recall from a previous chapter that every message has at least three aspects: the report aspect, the command aspect, and the context aspect. For two people to communicate effectively, the listener must understand all three aspects of a message correctly. If they conflict or are incongruous, understanding is impossible. The person receiving an incongruous message must ask for clarification if he is to understand and react appropriately.

In the example of Eloise and John, there is an incongruity in Eloise’s messages. The report aspect says one thing, and the command and context aspects say something else. What John has failed to do is to clarify the command aspects of her messages. When she says, “I’ll do the very best I can,” the report she is giving appears to be one of willingness. When she did not act accordingly, it becomes clear that though the report aspect conveys one message, the command aspect conveys another:

“I don’t think it’s good for you,” or “I don’t think it’s necessary,” or something of that sort. Each time John accepts the report aspect of her message without clarifying the command aspect, the problem increases.

John is just as culpable as Eloise. He says he needs more clean shirts, and Eloise states benevolently that she is saving money. The issue of money is irrelevant and tangential. John has sufficient income, and laundry bills are no problem. Yet he fails to respond to this issue because Eloise’s benevolent tone sidetracks him. Possibly the circumstances of his own rearing have made him susceptible to apparent benevolence, and his experience with Eloise had reinforced this response.

Spouses, who wish to eliminate the destructive pattern of incomplete transactions, should practice the following exercise.

If both spouses are collaborating in the effort to change this pattern, each must make a special effort to listen to the other’s statements; and when a statement is not absolutely clear, the confused spouse must query it, indicating, for example, that the meaning or the context is obscure, or that the tone of voice seems to imply something that doesn’t fit with the words.

If a spouse feels that this method is too dangerous or confusing, or that he is not up to practicing together, he can practice by himself, analyzing in writing the kinds of things the other spouse does with words and meanings that are confounding and confusing.

If a spouse finds himself the recipient of a tangential answer, like Eloise’s response to John about his shirts, he must firmly insist on the substantive outcome. For example, if Eloise states with her persuasive and benevolent pleading, “But, honey, even if you have plenty of money it’s silly to throw it away on laundry!” John must reply with something like, “Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. What I hear you saying is that you refuse to send my shirts to the laundry and would rather have me wear a dirty shirt to the office than spend another quarter. Is that what you mean?”

Eloise probably will say that this is not what she means; she is just trying to be a good wife and help John save money. If John accepts this answer, the result once again is an incomplete transaction, and the destructive effects of her apparent benevolence spread out a little further. Here John must reply with something like, “I know, Eloise, and I appreciate your point of view, but I definitely need more shirts, and I want the laundry to come to the house every week to pick them up. From my point of view, you’ll be a good wife if you arrange to have my shirts clean. Now will you or won’t you do this for me?”

If this method is followed, the incomplete transaction pattern will gradually be eliminated. The vice president of a large company reported in an article that after simple techniques of this sort for clarity of communication were introduced throughout the organization, the board of the company estimated that within several months’ efficiency rose 40 per cent.

Unfortunately, our American notions of romance, chivalry, and ladylike and gentlemanly behavior make it difficult for young couples to believe that fighting is permissible-and may even be necessary. H husbands and wives are to clarify what each other’s limits are-determining how much can be asked for in anyone time period without evidence of immediate return, and who (correctly or not) believes he is doing more of the giving-and if they are to find answers for the many other relationship questions that arise, there is no alternative to frank talk or action, even at the risk of temporarily damaging the relationship.

To put it simply, the motto of young spouses (or any two people) trying to work out a relationship should be, “If you can’t tell someone to go to hell, you can’t love him very much.” It takes courage to shake the status quo, but if the relationship isn’t worth a risk to improve it, it is bound to be forever limited and burdened by its own stagnation.