why would a cutter send an ideal stone to GIA vs. AGS?

[TLS]

Why would a cutter cut a stone to ideal proportions and then send it to GIA instead of AGS who would give them the coveted "O" ideal cut rating. I realize they both have great reputations, but I would think just the fact that AGS rates cut on their certs and could give it an "ideal" cut rating would be the added incentive for the cutter.

Just curious. I bought a H &A ideal cut stone with sarin numbers that confirmed it was ideal but the certification was with GIA, just wondering why a cutter wouldn't send it to AGS if he knew it was ideal. I am fine with the GIA cert since I have the sarin data etc., but I would think anyone cutting ideal cuts would prefer AGS.

I know as a consumer I certainly would prefer to have the cert. with all the angle information etc. available to me, though I believe AGS stones do demand a premium because of this additional information (as well as their reputation).

Can anyone comment?

edited to fix some typo's....

 

[denverappraiser]

Many customers demand GIA paper. They have simply never heard of AGS.

Neil Beaty
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[oldminer]

The "coveted" AGS "0" is not really all that well appreciated. It is a grade with some meaning, yet partly flawed by having some diamonds graded "0" that should not be so highly graded. AGS is about to correct this. The GIA report is a well respected standard and any diamond dealer knows when a stone is well cut or not....They don''t need a lab to tell them the cut parameters of a diamond as they can measure it themselves. A great stone looks very good, too. Expert eyes can tell a fine diamond from a less well cut one.

 

[windowshopper]

my experience is that ags is considered overkill.....most consumers have -as dave points out--no idea what it is. (any consumer that knows anything has heard of GIA). i also believe but i am not positive that it is more costly

 

[Regular Guy]

I think this is a great question (I had it when I was shopping) and with some great replies.

For example, certainly, I''ve been note about a related topic...it''s difficult for me to trust my own judgement about a diamond when seeing it among a group of others, trying to figure out where to go from there.

But Dave''s comments are frankly encouraging. Maybe this is just silly, but even anecdotal evidence that the job can be handled competently by a jewler without equipment for measuring crown & pavilion angles, and with only a GIA cert, would be helpful to nail this down for me.

Not meaning to be belligerent...just not wanting to automatically attribute powers to a jewler over my own, without some basis for it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

if you check out the lab grading survey on lower left area of the home page you can see that depending on variances in grading the same stone can have different values depending on the lab. Naturally many manufacturers or dealers will send the same stone to multiple labs and use the cert that gives it the highest value.

 

[TLS]

thanks for everyones comments, I love this website. I have learned so much!

David - question for you....I know you said that any diamond dealer should be able to judge the cut on his own, but I have found that many local jewelers I visited could not provide me the basic information I needed to verify the cut and therefore I did not feel comfortable that the cut was as they said with no supporting documentation, other than the GIA cert. It seems many local B&M's I visited misrepresented cut (either knowingly or unknowingly) and barely educate customers at all on cut. Many did not know what a sarin was and certainly were not going to be able to provide me that data. It would certainly be more beneficial for the consumer to have all the available crown, paviilion information on the certificate so that they could compare on their own (eliminate obvious known non-performers). Also, I think this is especially important for internet purchases.

I hope people don't jump all over me regarding my comment on local B & M's but this has been my experience and part of the reason that after doing months of research I finally went online to use a vendor who could provide everything I needed to make my decision. I finally went with GOG specifically because local jewelers could not offer me the level of information I needed to make the purchase. I realize many consumers go into the process uninformed, but at the least we should all be able to have all the relevant information on the stone certificates. The stores I visited would often call stones that were definitely not ideal, "ideal" by their own mysterious standards... I am sure there are many, many honest B & M's, but unfortunately I found some that fudged the truth a bit.

I respect GIA, but I do feel that they do customers a disservice by not providing the sarin data. I don't feel they necessarily have to rate the cut, meaning, they don't have to be the ones to tell us that it is "ideal" etc., but they should provide as much data as possible. Is this going to happen at any time in the near future? I thought I read on an old post that GIA was considering this.

 

[TLS]

just occured to me that we the consumers are not really GIA''s "customers" the cutters are right (those paying for the report?) and therefore they might not be overly anxious to have GIA list all the pertinent information on the certificates if they are not producing a quality product.

I could be totally off base here, but is this part of the reason GIA does not list the information - so as not to get pressure from their "customers"?

thanks

 

[Regular Guy]

Seems like Garry''s comments would tend to indicate that a well cut diamond, if eligible for AGS0 from AGS, would tend to show it, and so, if it had both AGS and GIA certs, the AGS cert, commanding a higher return, would tend to be the one made public (and represented on the databases here).

Presumably, though, this is then only what "tends" to happen, since we do see GIA certed diamonds that show AGS0 characteristics, regardless.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

When we started Infinity Diamonds, it was easier to work with GIA. They had a take-in-window in Antwerp, and for a small number of stones, this made shipping clearly less expensive. Also, I had the mistaken view that AGS seemed less easy to work with.

At the Moscow Diamond Cut Conference, I was informed about GIA''s new cut research, and I was not happy with it. At the same time, I was very happy with the new research and about-to-come new cut-grading of AGS, and it was definitely a pleasure meeting Peter Yantzer. Since then, we work with AGS, and I must say that they are very co-operative.

At the same time, we experience that AGS''s grading on colour and clarity is more strict than that of GIA, and Pricescope''s lab-study confirms this.

From a cutter''s point of view, this last point is very important. Even if a stone has AGS-ideal proportions, a higher colour or clarity from GIA is a bonus that is very valuable. It depends on your customers whether you can make up for that by getting a better price for an AGS-cert.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

exactly Paul.

If the stone is in demand in the far East - a IGI, HRD or GIA report will make more impact than an AGS in most markets.

If the stone is sent to one lab and the owner thinks they are too hard, they can fight with that lab for a second opinion - or they may just send it to a 2nd and third. they will only display the report that makes it worth the most money in its market.

It is possible that there are an average of 2 certs per stone - more grading may get done than there are big diamonds

 

[codex57]

My stone had both. What I gathered is that customers have only heard of GIA. So, when they ask for certification, they mean GIA cert. But, my stone got sent to AGS as well to get the 0 rating for cut and the Sarin report for all the measurements b/c it was an Ideal cut. Kind of a cover your bases thing for the retailer. Those w/out much knowledge want to see a GIA. Those who know a bit more want to see more specs.

 

[strmrdr]

It all boils down too know your customer and know the market your shooting for.
Around here the majority of RBs recomended and talked about have ags certs.
The fancy shaped diamonds GIA.
When I see an RB with a gia cert being sold as a super-ideal my first thought it whats wrong with it that someone is trying to hide.
With the top ps vendors the answer is nothing but with the rest..........


Even with a full sarin available I like ags certs better.
Why?
It gives me a way to check that the sarin was done right by comparing the results to the ags cert.

 

[TLS]

stormrider, thanks that was my concern as well.. i couldn''t understand why my super ideal has a gia cert. I did get it from a online respected vendor though, so I should have no concerns about that then right? I do trust the person who sold it to me and believe they are very competent.

wonder why as garry said if most cutters send stones to multiple labs and then go with the best one, why my would mine have GIA, maybe in this case the cutter did not send to multiple labs. any other reason you can think of? thanks

 

[codex57]

Does your vendor sell non-ideal stones? If so, maybe he''s just getting the cert that the majority of his customers ask about.

Down in the jewelry district where I got my ring, from just eavesdropping and my personal experience shopping for an ideal cut stone, the customers who go there generally go for size over any other factor. Plus, they all want their stone GIA certified. Maybe your vendor is just trying to please what he thinks is the most amount of customers as possible for his cheapest cost (one cert instead of two).

 

[TLS]

I just checked out niceice's website, who seem to focus solely on these ideals/super ideals (and whom most would say have extremely high standards) and the majority of theirs had GIA certs too it seems... so i guess it's not that unusual that a cutter would send these to GIA over AGS. i think what everyone saying about GIA being well known to most consumers must be the reason.

i wish that Brian the cutter would chime in with his opinion, i notice their ideals have GIA's , but their "cut aboves" seem to be only AGS.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/3/2005 10:33:29 AM
Author: TL1

wonder why as garry said if most cutters send stones to multiple labs and then go with the best one, why my would mine have GIA, maybe in this case the cutter did not send to multiple labs. any other reason you can think of? thanks

Read the Lab survey off the front page.
None of the 17 stones got the same grades from each lab.

The owner goes with the best grade from their point of view = the worst grade from yours. Get it?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I think that the whole story of double certification is highly exaggerated. When dealing in diamonds, time and the associated cost of financing a stock is extremely important. Sending a stone out for a grading report not only costs a lot on the grading report itself, but also on the time that the stone is not available for sale.

Because of this, most stones do not get sent around to multiple labs, because any possible gain would be offset by the cost of the reports and the financing cost.

In reality, a cutter chooses a lab based on tradition, his own personal (limited) knowledge and what his customers ask for or are happy with. In border-cases, and provided that the cutter has experience with all the labs, he might choose for the lab, which has a reputation of being more lenient.

Knowledgeable retailers will buy a stone based on its merits, not on its report. That is why the choice of the retailer is more important than the choice of the grading report.

Hope that this helps.

Live long,

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/3/2005 12:11:32 PM
Author: TL1
I just checked out niceice's website, who seem to focus solely on these ideals/super ideals (and whom most would say have extremely high standards) and the majority of theirs had GIA certs too it seems... so i guess it's not that unusual that a cutter would send these to GIA over AGS. i think what everyone saying about GIA being well known to most consumers must be the reason.

i wish that Brian the cutter would chime in with his opinion, i notice their ideals have GIA's , but their 'cut aboves' seem to be only AGS.

Hi TL1.

When Brian was first producing “A Cut Above” he had them graded by the GIA. Over time we have evolved to using AGS labs exclusively for ACA because we want more information on the diamond. Further, we believe AGS is currently a stronger body (stricter) when it comes to grading.

 

[asblackrock]

Hi TL1
I bought a diamond just before Xmas and was looking for a super ideal cut. The stone I found had a GIA cert with Sarin specs which seemed reasonable and I asked the same question as you - Why hadn't it been sent to AGS? The response from the supplier (MDX = Icestore Australia) was that it had only just been cut and the cutter was trying to get it onto the market before Xmas. The cert was dated the 28th of October 2004. It seems the time taken for GIA to certify must be shorter than AGS. Any comments from anyone about this?

Aside note: I have found subsequently that although my stone had a HCA of 0.6 and would have fallen smack in the middle of the AGS ideal rectangle, I was lucky it did not have more light leakage, as the pav angle was only 40.5. Thankfully idealscope image looks good and although I am a novice, it seems to me the stone performs well. I am no expert, but very particular. There is no apparent darkness to me at a close range, lots of white sparkle in general room light, beautiful grey arrows against a pure white background seen in dull diffuse light and HUGE fireworks in sunlight.
There are so many parameters that contribute to the visual performance of a diamond apart from what is on an AGS cert (eg details of all the minor facets such as upper and lower girdle facets) that in the end I have learnt you finally need to rely on your own eyes under a WIDE RANGE of lighting conditions when you make your selection. My stone behaves very differently depending on lighting (seems like a completely different stone depending on light level and if the light is diffuse or direct), that I feel you need to check out lots of lighting variations. I have not heard this emphasized much when buying, apart from making sure you see it away from a store's super bright halogen lights, which make even the worst stones look good! Maybe this explains why some "ideal" diamonds with good idealscope images are returned within their warranty period.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/4/2005 7:19:21 AM
Author: asblackrock
It seems the time taken for GIA to certify must be shorter than AGS. Any comments from anyone about this?

In our experience GIA actually takes longer. Johan is in a different part of the world, though. Perhaps one lab is more swift "down under."

There are so many parameters that contribute to the visual performance of a diamond apart from what is on an AGS cert (eg details of all the minor facets such as upper and lower girdle facets) that in the end I have learnt you finally need to rely on your own eyes under a WIDE RANGE of lighting conditions when you make your selection. My stone behaves very differently depending on lighting (seems like a completely different stone depending on light level and if the light is diffuse or direct), that I feel you need to check out lots of lighting variations. I have not heard this emphasized much when buying, apart from making sure you see it away from a store's super bright halogen lights, which make even the worst stones look good!

I'm glad you have returned to make these comments. As many will say, numbers are great - especially for eliminating known poor performers - but with the best of the best your eyes must be the final judge.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

I agree with Paul- I do not feel that many dealers submit to different labs and choose the best result.
Sure, it happens, but not frequently.
As Paul points out, the time and dollars involved are prohibitive.
Another factor influencing this is the relative value of diamonds graded by the different labs.
Say a cutter got J/SI1 from GIA, then sends it to EGL because they are reputedly softer on grades. Say EGL susequently gave the diamond I/VS2.
How many buyers are going to be sucked into paying the price of an I/VS2?
Let''s hope that the answer is, most people are smart enough not to get ripped off like that.
If an EGL J/VS2 goes for the same price as a diamond graded I/SI1 from GIA ( which is a faily common practice) then there''s no reason to do the second submission- of course we all know that there are cutters who still do this ( hoping that a "sucker" is born every minute)


AGS vs GIA- in the US there''s simply no comparison in reputation. GIA is not acting becuase of any fear that AGS will threaten GIA''s core business. They are responding to consumer, AND trade requests.
For folks that want the detailed measurements of a Sarin, I guess the current GIA report is missing things- yet, many of the most successful dealers never use Sarin reports. Cutter are another story- when cutting, the precise measurements of Sarin, and other similar machines are crucial.

THe question about "ideal cut" and AGS stones goin for more than GIA stones will certainly be affected by the new GIA cut grade.

 

[RockDoc]

GIA vs. AGS

For many dealers GIA is more geographically convenient. A dealer in NYC or LA can walk the stone into their lab. They take longer to grade the stone than AGS and are much less expensive to laser inscribe a stone as well. A GIA inscription once the stone has left the lab, used to cost for the inscription PLUS a percentage of the grading fee.

Many times it is a situation of COST to the cutter. Margins for many are slim, so TIME enters into the situation as well.

The "RUB" here is that many many many sellers of diamonds ( mostly retailers) honestly believe that a table range from 53-58 and a 60% ish total depth is all that is needed to say a stone is ideal cut. This is hogwash, and the AGS has done a great job in educating the trade ( as well as consumers ) about the other parameters of cutting.

I am curious to see what the future grading systems from both labs entail. GIA neglects putting on their reports the additional pavilion and crown information. This is supposed to change in the future, but at the moment the grading systems are in flux, attmepting to compare one another. GIA is "raising their informational content" and AGS appears like they may broaden the range of the 0 cut.

It is a battle for business. AGS has taken a lot of dollar volume away from GIA. It''s one I don''t wish to become part of because, the consumer is the final user, and yet both labs primarily get their business from dealers. I could do dealer work too, but choose not to so their is no question that the rerports I issue are for the consumers, and NOT the dealers. The test question is: " Would a reasonable person question this scenario". Maybe I am the one who is crazy for seeing huge volumes of business and money get spent elsewhere, however I would rather do work exclusively for consumers. Of course every business has a right to make their own decisions and provide information they see fit. If I don''t go along with what GIA and AGS do, I''ll come up with a grading system of my own, and since I don''t work for dealers, I don''t have to be concerned that they will get mad at me, should they not like the results of my testing, and opinions.

It will be interesting to say the least of how HRD, GIA, AGS, IGI and EGL respond to the changes in grading.

Rockdoc