Samuelsons Diamonds

Join Our Mailing List Call 1-800-374-GEMS or 410-837-0290 Contact Us
Home | Sell Your Jewelry | Blog |  History | Designers | Financing | Testimonials | Contact
Diamonds | Engagement Rings | Settings | Wedding Bands | Diamond Studs | Diamond Deals | Sell Your Jewelry | Our History | Shopping Cart

January 4, 2012

Baltimore Magazine Features New Build-a-Ring Feature

Samuelson's Diamonds Diamond Search - Over 6,000 Diamonds Available

Samuelson's Diamonds Diamond Search

 

Our new Build-a-Ring option was featured in Baltimore Magazine’s 31 days of giving.

This new feature allows you build your ring from scratch choosing your diamond and setting!  Better yet, your new engagement ring can often be delivered in under two weeks!  With the new diamond search, you can choose from over 6,000 diamonds using criteria such as cut, clarity, color, carat, and price.

To see the write-up in Baltimore Magazine please click here.

To get started building your very own engagement ring please click here!

November 18, 2010

Baltimore Sun Features Samuelson’s Diamonds Fan Page

Our international Diamonds Facebook Fan Page, “DiamondFans”, was just featured in the Baltimore Sun Business Tech section. We just cruised past 500,000 fans and were honored to receive this great write up. Special thanks to Gus Sentementes. Here’s a clip from the article:

Diamond Fans Unite on Facebook – thanks to a Baltimore Jeweler

One of the most popular destinations on Facebook with ties

DiamondFans

DiamondFans

to Baltimore isn’t connected to a sports team or a national brand, but to a downtown jewelry shop.

Ron Samuelson, of Samuelson’s Diamonds on West Baltimore Street, operates the “Diamond Fans” page on Facebook, which recently surpassed more than 500,000 fans and is now the largest jewelry page on the social media site…

Samuelson claimed the “Diamond Fans” page about 2 1/2 years ago, and he has been diligently updating it with photos and links to news, facts and trends in the world of diamonds. He does occasional promotions through the page for products for sale at his Baltimore store — but pushing advertising about his business isn’t the main purpose of the page, he said.

Instead, Samuelson is using the page to build a worldwide community of fans of diamonds, who incidentally might choose to buy jewelry from his store. He regularly polls the fans of the page to gauge changing tastes and trends in jewelry. For instance, do they prefer yellow or white gold, or platinum settings?

His Facebook fans can tell him which kinds of products to focus more on selling in his bricks-and-mortar store, he said. Online revenue from leads generated from the Facebook page is still small, he said.

“This page, much like social media, is not about pushing deals in people’s faces,” Samuelson said. “Much like any other medium, it’s all about establishing trust and communicating with people, and then the business comes.”

Please click here for the entire article. Samuelson’s Diamonds remains committed to being a leader in social media trends and bringing you the best in customer interaction, community building and of course…DIAMONDS!

May 14, 2010

Who Wants a Facebook Alternative?

Almost everyone I know complains about Facebook. Sometimes its the constantly changing interface, the privacy debacles, the spam, or even just service outages that are the cause of these complaints. Sometimes I think it’s like people riding a train complaining about it; sure the train could be better, but who is going to do anything about it?

Some guys from New York – freshly minted college guys of course – have put their money (or in this case, their summer and perhaps the rest of their lives) where their mouth is. Their project is called ‘Diaspora‘:

Diaspora: Personally Controlled, Do-It-All, Distributed Open-Source Social Network from daniel grippi on Vimeo.

They’ve already raised over $100,000 ($135,815 as of this writing, according to KickStarter) from people who want to see this live. (They originally thought they might raise $10,000!)

The skinny is this: Unlike most ‘aggregation’ services, this is not some site somewhere that is trying to grab as much of your data for itself as it can (like, um, Facebook?) but rather a piece of software – a seed as they have it – which can be planted in a variety of places including (it seems) your own website, interact with everywhere else (Facebook, Twitter, etc) but let you choose how much data you want to share, and your own data remains your own (such as a list of friends) so long as you do not wish to share it.

It appears that there will also be a ‘turnkey’ service available – for hosting it no doubt – which raises the single question everyone might be thinking right now. In all probability, running Diaspora will not be ‘free’. Now, Diaspora will not cost anything itself, but you will be responsible for hosting it, or paying for the turnkey service (which logically must be a form of hosting with Diaspora pre-planted.)

My prediction is thus: If they can make the turnkey cheap enough, they can bust Facebook’s bubble. It might take a miracle, or a disaster (a privacy-related disaster no doubt!) for this move to take place.

To me, it is quite pleasing to think of this as internet homesteading; I log into my own seed, and there I get everything I have on Facebook, but not on Facebook at all. And if someone isn’t on Diaspora yet, I can still interact with them (via Facebook’s open graph) and best of all, Facebook does not know who all my ‘friends’ are.

And if you can’t pay or figure out how to host it yourself, chances are someone you know and trust can. Now that’s a local internet.

From the irrepressible Mashable.

April 22, 2010

You Should Be Paid to Use Facebook

Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your lifeHave you ever seen those groups on Facebook that declare boldly, “We’re against Facebook charging for usage”? The “Petition against Facebook charging money”? Search for it, if you want; but know this: Facebook will never charge money for usage. In fact, I’d argue that they should be paying you for logging in an noodling around.

Take a look at F8: Zuckerberg, if you get past the jargon, wants to map all of the relationships on the web. Why? Because this is valuable to businesses, large and small. It is valuable to non-profits. It is valuable to governments. It is valuable to regular citizens. It is valuable to everyone.

If you want information on people’s needs, likes and habits, you need as many people as you can get. This is what you’d learn in any statistics class.

If you’ve ever tried to use a US appliance outside of the country, you also know that you need the same format to connect to the same network. Therefore, to make a map of the network of all these folks, you need them all in the same place, on the same format.

In short, they need everyone to get on Facebook.

Charging a fee for Facebook would raise the cost of entry (literally!) and mean that there are fewer people for Facebook to add to their map.

Facebook doesn’t charge because they know the value of each person they add for free will outweigh a subscription fee significantly.

So think about this: Why doesn’t Facebook pay us to use it?

See also: Ramble On Ron – Do you ‘like’ Facebook’s Changes?

April 9, 2010

Yelp: A Web Master’s Perspective

Given that we’ve recently had a run in with Yelp and their way of handling business to business relations, I’ve had this post in my thoughts for some time. Understand that despite the fact I work for Samuelson’s, I am sympathetic to Yelp’s position. I am, however, not an idealist; nor do I strictly believe that Yelp’s founders or operators are idealists either. Given some of the news that has come out lately – allegations of misconduct on Yelp’s part regarding advertisement plans and quid-quo-pro arrangements – I decided I’d finally give my opinion.

Yelp Is An Idea

First, it’s helpful to understand that Yelp is not a scam. Or rather, Yelp was not created to be a scam (perhaps a lightweight cult, but not a scam…) but that the ways which it seems to guys in our position that Yelp is a scam, is because of what Yelp has to do to make their model work.

The idea as I understand it is to be a form of free yellow pages with a social network built into it, which connects people via interests, places they visit, and regular social connections (friendships, etc.) The goal is to become the REAL source of independent reviews of restaurants and other businesses (primarily restaurants – more on that in a moment.) In order to do this, Yelp!, unlike Google or WeddingWire or others, actually takes it upon themselves to help weed out reviews that are fake.

But what constitutes a fake review? That’s a non-trivial problem, and given that, the simplest solution is to allow all reviews to stand and let the normal non-trivial processor (the human being) figure it out using old-fashioned judgment. Most people do not take one or two five-star reviews at face value; but they also may have a good first impression even if they read and doubt.

But Yelp, as I have already stated, has a bit of idealism in them: They want to actually be the Real Reviews by Real People service, and not just in press releases.

So they take it on themselves to figure out what a ‘real’ review is. In doing so they send conflicting messages: they don’t want to you send people who had a good experience to them, since obviously this can skew results. But why would a business let anyone know Yelp exists if they don’t have some chance of benefiting from it? (And the more popular Yelp is, the more crucial this becomes!)

Additionally, restaurants are something people tend to want to make reviews on, whereas other experiences (a grocery store for instance?) do not share this impetus; therefore the ability to get ‘real‘ reviews of anything other than restaurants, maybe spas, resorts and other service industries of that type – is limited.

If you are in a place where Yelp is big, you may have some recourse; there should be enough Yelpers to get a good perspective on your business without you doing any seeding on your own. But for the cities which Yelp has as of yet neglected – you will be stuck fighting getting reviews from first-time Yelpers who may have no credit, even if they are truly Real Reviews. (Yelp has recently tried some measures to reduce the effect of this.) Because Yelp has left this decision to an algorithm, therefore the judgment is guaranteed to be poor. Like with Wikipedia, articles that are not viewed or edited much will have poor quality. You might think it’s the other way around, but it’s not. (hint: the more something is edited, the more the editors pay attention to it.)

Yelp! Is A Business

Enter the practical side of Yelp. They need to make money somehow. This I think is why they enter cities one at a time only – only the largest and most potentially profitable markets. If they don’t do this, they will probably tank.

Now, consider the pragmatic side’s logic: It makes sense to offer benefits to paying customers – and a great benefit to businesses on a site like this would be to have more control over how you appear. Advertising makes sense, but the pragmatist might even say, we should let the businesses challenge reviews and have them removed if they are a paying customer. Why should they not? Do they pay to get punished by irate customers?

Now this would be fine if Yelp’s idealistic side had not dictated already that they were to be the site for Real Reviews – meaning, they want to project the image of being a complete listing of businesses – and to allow, as per social media / web 2.0 standards, people to add their own content, including letting Yelp know about businesses that are not on their map.

So what happens? Businesses get ‘opted in’ without their consent: Therefore the idea of offering benefits to paying customers, which in one case would seem like a benefit, now to some businesses seems like extortion. (And again, the more successful Yelp is, the worse the extortion will seem!) If I voluntarily enter into Yelp for free with knowledge that I may receive bad reviews and not be able to remove them – but such is the risk I take – there would be no problem. Then I could pay and have more control. That makes a lot of sense.

This is (still) not the case, however! And that brings us to our inevitable news.

Yelp Is Having Some ‘Issues’

Of all the news – the only bit of which I find interesting is this:

Lawyers representing plaintiffs dismiss an assertion Mr. Stoppelman has made on Yelp’s blog that they’re just going after the start-up’s money. …

It is an interesting accusation, and it tells me that probably the following has occurred: (These are not accusations, but pure conjecture!)

  1. Yelp originally intended to create some kind of quid-quo-pro relationship with businesses, but the auto-opt-in I discussed above has made such a thing impossible. That Mr. Stoppelman even stoops to claim that they’re just after his money is a sign that he knows he’s not totally clean.
  2. In all likelihood, a Yelp employee somewhere along the line in fact did offer the quid-quo-pro – once – and that employee was immediately fired. (As they should have been!) However, Yelp failed to come clean about it since popularity on the internet is like sainthood, ‘Your righteousness must exceed that even of the Pharisees.’ Any doubt is every doubt, when doubt is viral. This is simply to say, I believe that Yelp does not extort.

Yelp has recently taken action to try to appease small business owners, but it amounts to allowing people to view the filtered reviews after filling out a captcha (they couldn’t before!) – this is to prevent bots and search engines from indexing these reviews.

What Should We Do?

In conclusion, I do not have a solution for Yelp (or for us, really) except for one idea. To allow businesses to opt-out of Yelp would be a great step in the right direction. Businesses who do not have a good experience with Yelp because of the inherent randomness should not be punished unduly. And indeed, the experience model with different businesses varies extremely.

Yelp, like Microsoft, will find that its success punishes it: The more successful Yelp is, the more pressure there will be on businesses who did not ask to be listed to deal with Yelp – and the more pressure there will be on Yelp to offer some kind of real reconciliation between irate businesses and irate customers, and to deliver a satisfactory experience to two groups who historically hate each other in our society: ‘consumers’ and ‘corporations’.

And indeed, more pressure to find ‘real reviews’ – with an algorithm? Good luck with that one, fellas.

March 19, 2010

Facebook Groups for Business Collaboration

Facebook Groups can be much like Google Groups

This is David here. I’m Ron’s brother-in-law, married to his sister, Ellyn. I’ve been here at Samuelson’s Diamonds for about six years and I handle lots of the finance and marketing related issues for the company.

We’ve been talking about how video needs to be a more active element of our marketing efforts and we sat down recently with a creative video production group to put together some concepts for Samuelson’s Diamonds. As we were wrapping up our meeting – keep an eye out for some great videos next month – we brought up the idea of collaboration.

How would we effectively share our ideas with one another? I don’t know about you, but I tend to get ideas at all kinds of weird hours and in some pretty strange places. Instead of trying to keep an email chain going indefinitely and having to search Gmail or Outlook for the one email that someone forgot to “reply all” to and is now MIA, we decided to use Facebook as our tool of choice. Although Google Wave is exactly structured for this type of cooperative work, Facebook is a much better option from the standpoint of familiarity. We all know how to update, share, join, invite, etc. Nobody has to be educated or trained. We simply set up a private group, invite the people involved and start adding thoughts, content, comments and more.

Just when you thought Facebook was exclusively a place for social networking and viral marketing, turns out it can also be used for doing actual work!

February 11, 2010

Changes in Facebook – Thoughts about Social Media

The Face of Social MediaFor the umpteenth time since last year Facebook has changed its interface. (actually, it’s the second, I think) It seems a kind of petty thing to comment on, but given that 400 million people use Facebook, it is more interesting that you don’t see commentary on this kind of thing in the mainstream.

Facebook is free. Additionally, as a part of web 2.0, it is in a real sense ‘permanently broken’ or incomplete. Nobody really knows what we’re doing, and so things change and adapt quickly. However, a real question arises  – if it is true that for instance Facebook will be launching a gmail clone – will people begin to actually rely on it for vital communications? If this is so, what will a fairly moderate interface change mean? Given that people on the web are about as vocal every day as strikers are on the day of the ‘general strike’, can a service like Facebook ignore comments? What are they to do if a change removes key functionality (such as in this case, viewing updates from a specific application or status updates alone)?

It can easily be argued that Facebook is free, and therefore, you pay for what you get. But Facebook itself does not have that attitude; that’s a ‘screw you’ attitude that they’d never be caught uttering. Therefore we can assume that despite being free (on the front end, anyhow) Facebook wants to give its users the best experience possible, as though they were being paid for all of this. (They are, but not directly by us.)

What is interesting in all of this is that when I spoke to Ron, he mentioned that his iPhone app still had the same functionality. In other words, the same Facebook ‘data’ is sitting there, there is just a new ‘terminal’ we who are using the Web need to use. It makes me think that going forward we will see Facebook clients, much the way we see clients for Twitter. The difference is of course that Facebook is many times more complex! Imagine though, if you could get a Facebook client for 1.99 – Facebook gets a cut of that – over a possible group of 400 million folks?

And what about how widely used (and despised?) it is… I am reminded of everyone carping about Microsoft whenever they try to change something. Difference is, we have to accept the change on Facebook. With Microsoft at least there is a few years for us to adapt. And yet we keep using it!

Free, rich communication is valuable; just like a very generic & flexible operating system is. Maybe Facebook will give up trying to play nice and annoy us until we pay to stop the annoyance. I’ll bet they won’t lose people – where else will they go? Twitter?

Or maybe the value is like that of a huge fan page – everyone is there! How can you take credit for that?

January 22, 2010

News in the Internet Age

For years now, newspapers have been trying to figure out how to finance news journalism in the internet age. Or, as it is more commonly put, “get people to pay for news online.” For a time, it seemed like micropayments would be the solution, but the profitability of online payment transactions relies on the rule of fewer transactions, larger amounts. It is far easier to move a one-hundred dollar bill than ten thousand pennies.

But beneath it all there was a deeper issue; we have been trained on the internet to search for news, and search algorithms rely on spiders, or automated or robotic browsers, to follow links and search content. Paid content may sit behind a wall, disallowing both robots and humans from finding it. The converse is that which is searchable is accessible.

Then there is the issue of what the subscribers do with the information. In traditional print, there was some limited oversight in reprinting and republishing and redistribution, mostly because of the cost and effort required of such things. On the internet, you can go to the public library, log in, and start a blog on blogger and publish to the world. Even before this, it was fairly inexpensive to get your name out there, with a bit of know-how.

This all adds up to the concept that if you do not offer the news that you may have paid to compile or write for free, someone else will. Indeed, early on some savvy writers such as Drudge took advantage of free distribution to gain immense popularity while newspapers were still struggling to figure out what the internet was, much less how to maintain their current business through the changes it would impose.

The New York Times has suffered no less than any from this unwelcome disruption, and their recent actions show that they are still trying to figure things out:

The news that The New York Times will start charging for access to its website broke over the weekend, but now it’s officially confirmed. As anticipated, one of the world’s most recognizable newspapers will be introducing a metered model, meaning they will “offer users free access to a set number of articles per month and then charge users once they exceed that number.”

There are various comments, both by the author and by his commenters regarding the situation. It is always a touchy subject. Some like to get their news for free, and would never pay for it. Others see the ebook tablet – Kindle and so forth – as a possible route for rescue of the newspapers.

Either way, the internet offers no help; the information on the internet is in practice not free to produce or distribute (there used to be time and rate limits on internet, if you can remember back that far…!) but the scale of the internet combined with the ubiquity of computers distributes that cost. If it had come around 50 years ago out of the blue, the $500-$1000 for a computer alone would be enough prevent illusions of it being free of cost. Those of us who grew up with computers had our first use for ‘free’ as it were; with our parents or guardians paying for both computer and internet access.

The way I see it, if we set up a system to reliably pay for journalism, we prevent two things: The first is invasive and pervasive advertising, and the second is outright begging. It’s a cultural thing. Will my generation adapt?

November 23, 2009

The Social Media Train is Coming At Ya

This train doesnt have to stop for anyone.

It has been long clear that blogs and other kinds of  fast-updating media – especially of the text-rich variety have dominated other websites in search.

The formula is pretty simple: New content is news, blogs and public social media produce more new content than even periodicals, therefore to the search engine they essentially produce more news. A standard method of ranking includes a measure of relevance – which for many things will be how recently the information was acquired. The search engine can’t tell Plato from Gawker and add to that a frequency of smaller and more diverse postings (as in Twitter or Facebook,) and you have a recipe for search-domination.

Jennifer Van Grove at Mashable writes:

Essentially what customers, fans, and detractors are posting to social media sites are dominating the brand name search experience over social media content created by the brands themselves. This data clearly creates a legitimate reason for brands to be proactive with their social media presence, as participating in the exchange about their brand should improve the quantity and quality of customer-created social media content that searchers will happen upon.

It is worth noting that this only effects opinion and brand, since these sites (blogs and the like) are less apt to drive sales than product-rich websites. They have a broad but shallow impact. It really makes clear what marketers have been saying about word-of-mouth advertising for a long time, doesn’t it?

Google Social Search is coming!

Google Social Search is coming!

Add to this the emergence – and how soon no-one knows for sure – of Google Social Search, it might just be the moment to be on social media (or the time to stay very, very far away from it!) Which you choose depends on how you interact with customers.

A final note is that Google Social Search requires a person to keep connections in their Google account (which not everyone has or does) so the impact may be spotty for awhile. I’ve experimented myself, and my results tend to be dominated by a few people who are more connected in that way, or who run blogs or comment on blogs frequently.

It is cool, though, in a weird kind of way. What kind of SEO can you do on that kind of stuff?

My brain replies:

To: john

Subject: your posting on Yelp!

Body: Can you please include the words ‘diamond retail experience‘ in your review? Thanks.

Oh! That would be strange.

November 13, 2009

Guest Blog Post: Which Social Media “Expert” are you?

Here’s a funny and informative post by our friend Bridget Forney titled “Which Social Media “Expert” Are You?”.  You can read more of Bridget on her blog http://www.numbersnotinvited.com or follow her on twitter @BridgetForney.

Which Social Media “Expert” are you?

These days, it’s not hard to find an expert on social media. Well, to rephrase, it’s not hard to find a self-proclaimed expert on social media. With the semi-recent craze for all things Twitter, Facebook and web 2.0, everyone seems to be coming out of the woodworks announcing their know-it-all status when it comes to online marketing and poking around the deep dark corners of networking websites. But how knowledgeable are these “experts”? What makes a social media expert to begin with? Which social media expert are you?

There are a few types of “experts” on the web that you may run into when looking for a professional in the social media world. Heck, you may very well be one of these social media experts. Read on to investigate the inner workings of online “specialists”…

The Twitter Expert
The Twitter Expert is one who has a Twitter account, and is probably an obsessive tweeter. They probably follow people in the thousands in an effort to increase their “follower” numbers. The people they’re following most likely will exceed their followers by a number in the hundreds at the least. This expert thinks they specialize in all things Twitter, but they’re likely the type of “I am clipping my toenails right now”-tweeter that you try to avoid. Follower quantity means more to them than follower quality and to credit their expertise, they’ll often boast about the number of followers they have – even though 80% of them are likely spammers. If you don’t follow the Twitter Expert back, they might shamelessly DM you to say, “Will you follow me back!?”

The Business Expert
The Business Expert is one who has an online presence for their business, either on Twitter, Facebook, both or other networking websites. This expert thinks their knowledge of social media is credible due to the fact that they use it for their business. This expert is about as much a social media connoisseur as the person who hands out teriyaki chicken samples in the food court at the mall is an expert at marketing Thai food. Just because you play the game, doesn’t mean you should be a coach.

The Local Expert
The Local Expert is a native to the area and may or may not be a shameless self-promoter. This expert promotes their credibility through the fact that they know the city, the town and what’s going on with the local culture, thus they probably tweet useful information often and may have a substantial and legitimate following. The only problem is, this expert probably learned everything they know from someone else. All of the information they give you is likely second hand knowledge and they may or may not take the credit for it. There is no disputing the fact that The Local Expert is experienced and familiar with using social media applications, but by no means are they social media specialists or should be offering their “services” to others.

The Unemployed Expert
The Unemployed Expert, it goes without saying, does not have a job. For this reason, they can spend unparalleled amounts of time online perfecting their social media expertise. They’re the people you see flooding your update column with useful, and sometimes controversial thoughts…ALL the time. Sparking a controversial conversation with an A-lister is probably the highlight of their jobless day. It’s okay though, because due to those particular conversations, they’re seen and virally heard by hundreds, sometimes millions. At the end of the day, sometimes it’s their social media presence that ends up getting them hired. The Unemployed Expert will likely know social media pretty well, but may or may not know the inner workings of strategic communications specifically for businesses. Ancient Chinese Proverb: He who can market himself, may not necessarily be capable of marketing others.

The Public Relations Expert
The Public Relations Expert is usually a professional in the marketing industry who first stumbled upon the beautiful world of social media in an effort to promote or advertise a client. These professionals were probably the first people online who immediately recognized the power of social media, harnessed its raging potential and used it to their advantage. Whether or not they do it effectively, however, is open to interpretation. The Public Relations, or PR, Expert accredits their expertise to the fact that they use social media for their client(s). This lucky expert has the ability to transfer their authoritative status in the marketing industry over to the world of social media. Some PR Experts can talk the talk, but not all can walk the walk.

The Salesman Expert
The Salesman Expert is generally someone who isn’t at all interested in joining a social conversation, and doesn’t really care about social media at all. This selfish social savant is only interested in selling their own product or service, and their updates will generally reflect that. These Internet marketers will sometimes boast about having the secret juice, the magic dust that will bring you followers. Don’t fall for it. Like a fat person trying to lose weight, the only way to gain followers is by doing it the good old-fashioned way: hard work and (metaphorical) exercise.

If you think your expertise has been questioned here, it probably has. Don’t get your panties in a bundle; it’s for good reason. Step back and ask yourself which social media expert are you? Are you a mixture of a few classifications? Should you REALLY be offering “services” to others on social media? The definition of a social media “expert” should not be open for interpretation. It’s not a grey issue. You either are or you aren’t.

If you’re not sure, a good rule of thumb is to wait until someone ELSE says you are. Otherwise, you’ve just been self-diagnosed. Where’s the credibility? You can tweet about being an expert and others can too; you may even have your own website, blog and newsletter, but the only thing that can qualify you as a REAL social media expert is a PROVEN track record of success. That means results.

I’ll leave you with this ancient Chinese proverb: Keep your broken arm inside your sleeve.
Go forth and tweet,
Bridget Marie

P.s. If you know of an Expert I didn’t list here, please leave me a comment and I’ll add it to the list!

Older Posts »
 

Powered by WordPress

---

We accept Visa, Mastercard, Discover and American Express. You may also use Google Checkout and Paypal. We Finance through Mariner Financing.

Samuelson's  |   Home  |   Diamonds  |   Engagement  |   History  |   Designers  |   Testimonials
Diamonds  |   Search  |    Deals List  |   Deals Search  |   Studs  |   Education
Products  |   Design an Engagement Ring  |   Wedding Bands  |   Michele Watches  |   Jewelry Specials
Media  |   Blog & News  |   Press Releases  |   Ron's Blog  |   Facebook  |   Twitter  |   Youtube  |   Flickr
Buying  |   Sell My Diamond  |   Sell My Jewelry  |   Sell My Gold  |   Sell My Silver  |   Sell My Watch  |   Sell My Coins
Services  |   Financing  |   Contact  |     |   Driving Directions  |   Shopping Cart  |   Site Map
Jewelers Board of Trade, Polygon, GIA, EGL USA

Copyright © 2012 Samuelsons Diamonds
419 West Baltimore Street | Baltimore, Maryland | United States | 21201
Work Phone: 1-800-374-4367 | Preferred Work Phone: 410-837-0290
Steve Samuelson: Category 1 SPMOD Licensed Dealer, licenses 147-01, 147-02, 147-03