shape
carat
color
clarity

GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and why

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
9,711
The discussion arose in another thread-there was a suggestion made to to open relevant thread.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-india-is-this-junk.207237/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-india-is-this-junk.207237/[/URL]

We know from the only cut grade that GIA currently offers that AGSL has a far narrower range allowed in their top cut grade.
Is this the best way to do it?
I for one, hope that GIA, should they ever issue cut grades for Fancy Shapes, allows for a greater range of taste, as compared with the AGS 0 cut grade for Princess Cut diamonds.

This is not to lessen the value of AGSL in any way. Without a doubt it takes more time, and a higher level of skill for a cutter to achieve the top cut grade with AGSL.
If GIA does issue princess cut grades- and they are wider than AGSL, the 0 cut grade stones will likely command a premium.

But if I was polled I would have gone with a different model that AGSL Princess cut for purely aesthetic reasons.
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,633
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

David,
What are you asking?
For validation of your opinion or the question in the title?
I would not want to start the wrong discussion :saint: :saint:
 

MelisendeDiamonds

Shiny_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
234
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Rockdiamond|1414337352|3772912 said:
Great post Neil. ..... but GIA's poll was 700,000+ people,

No GIA asked only ~300 people very specific questions and were given specific diamond comparisons and visual qualities to compare and rank not an opinion poll. 100+ of the viewers worked for the lab or organization.

I'm sorry you leading this discussion will result in errors like the one above and there is just no credibility to this kind of thread with such a flawed introduction.

Rockdiamond said:
But if I was polled I would have gone with a different model that AGSL Princess cut for purely aesthetic reasons.

If you read the foundation articles you would realize those grading systems aren't created based on popularity contests or personal overall preferences. That silly notion has somehow been attributed to GIA's validation of its cut grading system on this board. GIAL used computer raytracing first and then validated its results with human observation of sample selected diamonds.

They didn't poll trade to ask them subjectively which diamonds they like best and put those in their top grade. 8-)
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
9,711
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Melisende- as far as reading all the papers on this subject, no.
Nor do I believe I'll have time.
Which is precisely why this discussion has been illuminating to me- and likely others.
As it affects me, I look at the diamonds, and judge results that way.
Since I have a lot to do with GIA, I speak to them regularly, but not AGSL.
I have more knowledge from speaking with cutters on AGSL and how it works from that end.
Since my perspective is if a more practical nature- and you seem to have a very strong grasp on factual differences between the two methodologies, I ask this in earnest- please put the discussion on a track that will illuminate the issue.
 

denverappraiser

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
9,150
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

I agree with the above that this is a rather different discussion than the last one that led to this but I’ll play anyway.

GIA outsells AGS something like 100:1, and this margin looks to be increasing. Whatever we all think, the invisible hand clearly is voting for GIA here. That means that the heart of the question isn’t so much if people prefer GIA but why, and why by such a large margin.

I have a few theories.

#1 Dealers know them. Nearly everyone in the industry has GIA training to one extent or another. With a lot of us they were the source of a very important credential, with others it’s just taking a class or attending a seminar at a conference. AGS, on the other hand, is a decidedly exclusive club. It’s HARD to join. It’s expensive. It can be cliquish. One of the results of this is that nearly everyone self-identifies with GIA and next to none do so with AGS. Either lab will do work for pretty much anyone who pays them and there are no benefits that I’m aware of for either alumni or members but AGS definitely has more of an ‘insider’ feel about them.

#2 GIA is the benchmark. Even if some other lab is somehow ‘better’ in one or more areas, GIA sets the bar, and they set it pretty high. They define the terms. They are the arbiter of disputes. With every lab and every grader, their results are based on a comparison to GIA. Despite handwringing over things like the schedules and anecdotal stories about the occasional error, they do a remarkably good job.

#3 The industry has a terrible reputation for charlatans with Three Letter Acronyms (TLA’s) and GIA has managed to ride it out with their image intact. Even the bribery scandal a decade or so ago left them stronger than before. Sound advice is to NOT rely on any lab you’ve never heard of, no matter who it is, and GIA has the best brand recognition by far.

None of that is directly about cut grading but rather market dynamics. It’s why AGS is losing the race no matter what you think of their methodology. How it gets wrapped into cut grading is that you can’t pick and choose. You can’t get the cut graded by one lab, color by another and so on. You can’t get a cut-only report from either lab and, in the case of GIA, you can’t get a grading report that either excludes it from modern rounds or includes it for anything else. It’s a package deal. You have to get all 4 C’s from the same place. Clarity, color, weight, origin and treatments are things of great interest to the public and, by far, they want to hear from GIA about them for the reasons above. To the extent that there’s a difference on these, the ‘correct’ answer is the one that comes from GIA. That leaves dealers in the peculiar position of NEEDING to get GIA official grading and then having to estimate AGS cut grades using AGS supplied software if they want it. Sending it to the lab actually makes things worse because of the possibility of disagreement on one or more of the line items. AGS has a trade reputation for being soft on color (undeserved in my opinion), but lab differences in at least one area from fluorescence to symmetry to color are actually fairly common. In effect, you've presented a false dilemma. Cut grading does not stand on it's own and, as a package deal, GIA comes out ahead nearly every time.
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,633
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

I am with Neil cut grades are marketing.

As for which I prefer either one is fine with me with rounds because I don't give them a ton of weight.
I would rather gather my own information and use my own system which is gather as much information as possible and get the opinion of multiple tools then let my eyes be the final judge.
With fancies I give cut grades even less weight than with rounds.

Neither system is perfect and both are better than nothing.
GIA presenting flawed data is my biggest beef with them, I just cant get over the stupid rounding.
One the other hand scanner tolerances make the AGS grading less precise than they would like you to believe and there are some serious flaws in the methodology. On whole it is better than the GIA system in my opinion.
To be fair the latest generation of scanners have increased the precision of the AGS system but the scanners are far from perfect particularly on fancies.
There are cutters that routinely cut inside the tolerance levels of the scanners.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Rockdiamond|1414374262|3773116 said:
The discussion arose in another thread-there was a suggestion made to to open relevant thread.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-india-is-this-junk.207237/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-india-is-this-junk.207237/[/URL]

We know from the only cut grade that GIA currently offers that AGSL has a far narrower range allowed in their top cut grade.
Is this the best way to do it?
I for one, hope that GIA, should they ever issue cut grades for Fancy Shapes, allows for a greater range of taste, as compared with the AGS 0 cut grade for Princess Cut diamonds.

This is not to lessen the value of AGSL in any way. Without a doubt it takes more time, and a higher level of skill for a cutter to achieve the top cut grade with AGSL.
If GIA does issue princess cut grades- and they are wider than AGSL, the 0 cut grade stones will likely command a premium.

But if I was polled I would have gone with a different model that AGSL Princess cut for purely aesthetic reasons.
I suspect that when and if GIA comes out with an overall cut grade for princess and other fancies, it will be patterned after the grading construct for rounds and be similarly broad. And that will be fine - the sooner the better.

I don't see AGS vs GIA cut grading as an "either/or" proposition. They have different approaches and fill different needs in the market. While we tend to see it as some sort of competition since we debate relative merits frequently, let's remember that AGS developed their system well before GIA got into the act. AGS was not trying to best the GIA system - they were trying to add something that did not exist for those consumers interested in understanding the light performance impacts of the cutting of the diamonds they were considering. And their success demonstrated that the market did want this service, which helped motivate GIA to come to market with a similar service.

While the release of the GIA system took a little of the wind out of the sails of AGS, the difference in the level of detail continues to make an AGSL report something that consumers want. And while AGS is tiny compared to GIA, it is growing. As the numbers of consumers interested in knowing about light performance in diamonds grows, so will the number of consumers who want the most detailed information they can get their hands on. AGS has no illusions about displacing GIA, nor do they want that.

While these labs are in competition in one sense, they are also integral parts of sister organizations which have a deep level of respect for each other. It almost looks to me that it is a choreographed dance that the two are doing, trying to serve the needs of their prime constituencies while minimizing the number of times they step on each other's toes!
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
9,711
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Thank you to all who are adding to the discussion in a positive manner.
I agree with pretty much all of what's been written.
To add to the positives on AGSL: they are far more responsive to newer designs.
Imagine asking GIA to issue a cut grade on an Octavia.

Part of what I see as an issue here on PS is that we have a far more informed readership, as compared to the general public.
For example- how many people buying diamonds today know about Pricescope, in anyone's estimation?
Now, if we add one stipulation- how many people buying AGS graded diamonds know about Pricescope?
Without a doubt the percentage of folks that are aware of AGSL are far more likely to have read this forum.
That's why a discussion like this can be truly important.
Is an AGSL graded stone better than a GIA graded? You can easily get that impression reading a lot of the advice given here.
I think we can agree that AGSL Cut grading produces a far more consistent visual result as compared to GIA cut grading ( as it is today)

The issue is that the consistency is of no use of one does not like the light performance of the consistently graded stones..
If the discussion was a bit more informed as to the type of differences between the labs, and resulting light performance of the diamonds, I think it would enrich the general diamond discussion here on PS.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Rockdiamond|1414446590|3773531 said:
Thank you to all who are adding to the discussion in a positive manner.
I agree with pretty much all of what's been written.
To add to the positives on AGSL: they are far more responsive to newer designs.
Imagine asking GIA to issue a cut grade on an Octavia.

Part of what I see as an issue here on PS is that we have a far more informed readership, as compared to the general public.
For example- how many people buying diamonds today know about Pricescope, in anyone's estimation?
Now, if we add one stipulation- how many people buying AGS graded diamonds know about Pricescope?
Without a doubt the percentage of folks that are aware of AGSL are far more likely to have read this forum.
That's why a discussion like this can be truly important.
Is an AGSL graded stone better than a GIA graded? You can easily get that impression reading a lot of the advice given here.
I think we can agree that AGSL Cut grading produces a far more consistent visual result as compared to GIA cut grading ( as it is today)

The issue is that the consistency is of no use of one does not like the light performance of the consistently graded stones..
If the discussion was a bit more informed as to the type of differences between the labs, and resulting light performance of the diamonds, I think it would enrich the general diamond discussion here on PS.
David,
To that I can only say one thing:

huh?

If the goal is to "enrich the general diamond discussion" then maybe it's best not to speak in code. :think:
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
33,852
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

I don't mind buying either grading lab if all the information is available in front of me.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Dancing Fire|1414450422|3773571 said:
I don't mind buying either grading lab if all the information is available in front of me.
I think this gets at the issue. AGSL provides information about cut quality in a more detailed way. While not every consumer feels the need for that extra information, many do. And those that are spending more time researching their diamond purchase find their way to pricescope, so it should be no surprise that the two are connected.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
33,852
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Texas Leaguer|1414450960|3773580 said:
Dancing Fire|1414450422|3773571 said:
I don't mind buying either grading lab if all the information is available in front of me.
I think this gets at the issue. AGSL provides information about cut quality in a more detailed way. While not every consumer feels the need for that extra information, many do. And those that are spending more time researching their diamond purchase find their way to pricescope, so it should be no surprise that the two are connected.
True, but if I was looking at a GIA stone then I'll request a sarin or a helium report from the vendor. however, I have purchased more AGS stones than GIA stones. My last 5 purchases was graded by AGS.
 

cflutist

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
4,052
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Texas Leaguer|1414450960|3773580 said:
Dancing Fire|1414450422|3773571 said:
I don't mind buying either grading lab if all the information is available in front of me.
I think this gets at the issue. AGSL provides information about cut quality in a more detailed way. While not every consumer feels the need for that extra information, many do. And those that are spending more time researching their diamond purchase find their way to pricescope, so it should be no surprise that the two are connected.

Bryan,

A quick search of your ACA diamonds showed that all came with AGSL lab reports.
I know that all CBI diamonds also have AGSL lab reports.

From your perspective, why is that? Why did you choose AGSL over GIA?

Do customers who buy superideal diamonds in the US expect it?

I think I read somewhere that international buyers prefer GIA paper.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

denverappraiser|1414417618|3773290 said:
I agree with the above that this is a rather different discussion than the last one that led to this but I’ll play anyway.

GIA outsells AGS something like 100:1, and this margin looks to be increasing. Whatever we all think, the invisible hand clearly is voting for GIA here. That means that the heart of the question isn’t so much if people prefer GIA but why, and why by such a large margin.

I have a few theories.

#1 Dealers know them. Nearly everyone in the industry has GIA training to one extent or another. With a lot of us they were the source of a very important credential, with others it’s just taking a class or attending a seminar at a conference. AGS, on the other hand, is a decidedly exclusive club. It’s HARD to join. It’s expensive. It can be cliquish. One of the results of this is that nearly everyone self-identifies with GIA and next to none do so with AGS. Either lab will do work for pretty much anyone who pays them and there are no benefits that I’m aware of for either alumni or members but AGS definitely has more of an ‘insider’ feel about them.

#2 GIA is the benchmark. Even if some other lab is somehow ‘better’ in one or more areas, GIA sets the bar, and they set it pretty high. They define the terms. They are the arbiter of disputes. With every lab and every grader, their results are based on a comparison to GIA. Despite handwringing over things like the schedules and anecdotal stories about the occasional error, they do a remarkably good job.

#3 The industry has a terrible reputation for charlatans with Three Letter Acronyms (TLA’s) and GIA has managed to ride it out with their image intact. Even the bribery scandal a decade or so ago left them stronger than before. Sound advice is to NOT rely on any lab you’ve never heard of, no matter who it is, and GIA has the best brand recognition by far.

None of that is directly about cut grading but rather market dynamics. It’s why AGS is losing the race no matter what you think of their methodology. How it gets wrapped into cut grading is that you can’t pick and choose. You can’t get the cut graded by one lab, color by another and so on. You can’t get a cut-only report from either lab and, in the case of GIA, you can’t get a grading report that either excludes it from modern rounds or includes it for anything else. It’s a package deal. You have to get all 4 C’s from the same place. Clarity, color, weight, origin and treatments are things of great interest to the public and, by far, they want to hear from GIA about them for the reasons above. To the extent that there’s a difference on these, the ‘correct’ answer is the one that comes from GIA. That leaves dealers in the peculiar position of NEEDING to get GIA official grading and then having to estimate AGS cut grades using AGS supplied software if they want it. Sending it to the lab actually makes things worse because of the possibility of disagreement on one or more of the line items. AGS has a trade reputation for being soft on color (undeserved in my opinion), but lab differences in at least one area from fluorescence to symmetry to color are actually fairly common. In effect, you've presented a false dilemma. Cut grading does not stand on it's own and, as a package deal, GIA comes out ahead nearly every time.
I agree in large part. I wouldn't characterize the AGS/GIA comparison as a race though. I think AGS is happy to serve their constituency in a quality way and to see controlled sustainable growth.

And this is not widely known but AGSL does in fact offer a cut-grade-only report. AGSL accomodates those that insist on GIA color and clarity but want light performance based cut grading. You can send in a GIA stone and AGSL will issue a report with the results of their cut grading and including references to the GIA report and its color and clarity grades.
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
9,711
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Sorry Bryan, I didn't mean to speak in code.
Relevant points:
Far more PS readers are familiar with AGSL than the general diamond buying public- so this is a great place to discuss specifics.
Knowing that AGSL has narrower parameters of top cut grades gives us a basis to see what people like and why.
For example, some people prefer a stone without H&A that might fall inside GIA EX, yet outside AGSL0
It's interesting to hear what people love, and why.
I personally have learned a lot of interesting aspects about lab grading specifics through many discussions about these subjects here.
Like the fact AGSL offer cut only grading- cool!

As GIA inevitably moves toward cut grading for fancy shapes, discussions about GIA versus AGSL cut grading are likely to heat up.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

cflutist|1414452848|3773595 said:
Texas Leaguer|1414450960|3773580 said:
Dancing Fire|1414450422|3773571 said:
I don't mind buying either grading lab if all the information is available in front of me.
I think this gets at the issue. AGSL provides information about cut quality in a more detailed way. While not every consumer feels the need for that extra information, many do. And those that are spending more time researching their diamond purchase find their way to pricescope, so it should be no surprise that the two are connected.

Bryan,

A quick search of your ACA diamonds showed that all came with AGSL lab reports.
I know that all CBI diamonds also have AGSL lab reports.

From your perspective, why is that? Why did you choose AGSL over GIA?

Do customers who buy superideal diamonds in the US expect it?

I think I read somewhere that international buyers prefer GIA paper.
Hi Cheryl,
Yes all of our A CUT ABOVE diamonds are required to have a platinum AGS report. The reason for this is simple - we represent these diamonds as the best of the best in terms of cut quality, and as such they should come with an independent laboratory report with the strictest standards.

To some extent customers do expect it. To a larger extent, I think it is something we impose on ourselves in order to assure our customers that these stones meet the highest standard out there even before they can be considered for our superideal brand. While they have to meet additional requirements for cut precision and other factors relevant to cut craftsmanship and light performance, it only seems logical they should all achieve the AGS 0 benchmark.

GIA is clearly the most well known lab in the world and it is fair to say most international buyers prefer GIA paper (for that matter, the same can be said about US buyers!). But there are international markets that we serve where AGSL is known and respected for what they bring to the table in terms of cut quality analysis.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Rockdiamond|1414453402|3773600 said:
Sorry Bryan, I didn't mean to speak in code.
Relevant points:
Far more PS readers are familiar with AGSL than the general diamond buying public- so this is a great place to discuss specifics.
Knowing that AGSL has narrower parameters of top cut grades gives us a basis to see what people like and why.
For example, some people prefer a stone without H&A that might fall inside GIA EX, yet outside AGSL0
It's interesting to hear what people love, and why.
I personally have learned a lot of interesting aspects about lab grading specifics through many discussions about these subjects here.
Like the fact AGSL offer cut only grading- cool!

As GIA inevitably moves toward cut grading for fancy shapes, discussions about GIA versus AGSL cut grading are likely to heat up.
Yes, there are many different tastes in the market. Both systems allow for them in their own way. After all, nobody says a diamond has to be an AGS0. There are 1's and 2's out there that are just fine :wink2:

No doubt that when GIA releases cut grading for fancies discussions will heat up. I think it will be good news for the consumer and for the industry. But I wonder if I will be retired by the time that happens...
 

Karl_K

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
14,633
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Rockdiamond|1414453402|3773600 said:
Sorry Bryan, I didn't mean to speak in code.
Relevant points:
Far more PS readers are familiar with AGSL than the general diamond buying public- so this is a great place to discuss specifics.
Depends, many of the smaller chains and locals in my area have an house brand premium round diamond and almost all of them use AGSL reports for them.
The larger chains are carrying branded cuts and many of them also use AGSL.
It is out there is public far more than it was even 5 years ago.
I even saw an AGSL aset poster on the wall in a store in the mall.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Karl_K|1414464289|3773674 said:
Rockdiamond|1414453402|3773600 said:
Sorry Bryan, I didn't mean to speak in code.
Relevant points:
Far more PS readers are familiar with AGSL than the general diamond buying public- so this is a great place to discuss specifics.
Depends, many of the smaller chains and locals in my area have an house brand premium round diamond and almost all of them use AGSL reports for them.
The larger chains are carrying branded cuts and many of them also use AGSL.
It is out there is public far more than it was even 5 years ago.
I even saw an AGSL aset poster on the wall in a store in the mall.
Good point Karl. Remember that the American Gem Society consists of a large network of some of the most well established and prominent retail jewelers in the country. That is a solid foundation on which to build.

AGSL has historically put more of their funding and energy into research and development as opposed to marketing to fuel growth. In my opinion that has served them well. They are in a good position to flip the switch or at least ramp up. But as I said earlier, I believe they are more interested in maintaining a sustainable growth doing what they do best.
 

denverappraiser

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
9,150
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Karl_K|1414464289|3773674 said:
I even saw an AGSL aset poster on the wall in a store in the mall.
Many of AGS's biggest and highest profile members have outlets in malls. Helzburg Diamonds and Ben Bridge Jeweler come to mind. Although they have a bad reputation around here, the mall is just a building. Each jeweler, and indeed every merchant in the building, stands or falls on their own merits and although they rent space in the mall because they think it'll be convenient for their customers, it's not their address that makes one better or worse than another.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

denverappraiser|1414502843|3773817 said:
Karl_K|1414464289|3773674 said:
I even saw an AGSL aset poster on the wall in a store in the mall.
Many of AGS's biggest and highest profile members have outlets in malls. Helzburg Diamonds and Ben Bridge Jeweler come to mind. Although they have a bad reputation around here, the mall is just a building. Each jeweler, and indeed every merchant in the building, stands or falls on their own merits and although they rent space in the mall because they think it'll be convenient for their customers, it's not their address that makes one better or worse than another.
I agree, it's not fair to paint all mall stores with the same brush. But where criticism is warranted, stores need to step up their game. Especially if they hold the AGS title.

On a somewhat related tangent, I have always found it a head scratcher that AGS did not do more to encourage their members to use and promote the lab. More of their member stores are stocked with GIA and IGI diamonds. Although there certainly are exceptions,I would bet that you would be lucky to find more than a limited selection of AGSL certs in most AGS stores, and the chance of getting to see an AGS0 princess (without having it specifically called in) is very low. To me, they could and should do more to grow visibility and understanding of the lab and their unique value proposition.
 

denverappraiser

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
9,150
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

That’s part of a large and very complicated question that’s a giant problem for AGS. Why do stores join, or not? Why do they stay? For the most part that has nothing to do with the lab but there’s a bit of a issue of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Stores want to carry what their customers demand. That’s GIA and IGI. Customers demand that because that’s what they’ve learned through advertising, Internet education, and education from those very same jewelers and their competitors.

Stores want to promote what makes them different and better than their competitors. That’s what stores do. In the case of AGS that mostly means the code of ethics, the education, and the standards of conduct. Most AGS members have long histories and outstanding reputations. This is not a coincidence. These are all good reasons to pick a jeweler to be sure, but the lab doesn’t really make the list. Any jeweler or dealer who wants to can submit things to the lab, and any dealer who wants to is welcomed to buy and sell AGSL graded goods. Neither the society nor the lab gets a vote in this. It’s a public market and it has nothing whatever to do with membership. The closest they come is that people who are otherwise hunting for an AGSL graded stone might first be inclined to look for a Society member to sell them one so they may get this question more often than non-members. I would equate this to a used car division of a Ford dealer. They can and do sell all makes and models, they sell whatever they get, but it’s seems likely that they would have a greater than average set of customers who are looking for Fords.

Is there some sort of responsibility or obligation owed by the members to ‘support’ the lab? I think not, but there are debates over this. In my mind, their primary duty is towards their customers, their staff, and their stockholders. Use or not of the lab should be based on one or more of those and if the lab can’t persuade them to do it, that’s the lab’s problem.

By the way, in the realm of disclosure if you call it that, I’m an AGS member and have been for years. I’m one of their top credentialed titleholders and I speak with them regularly on exactly this sort of topic.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

denverappraiser|1414513073|3773896 said:
That’s part of a large and very complicated question that’s a giant problem for AGS. Why do stores join, or not? Why do they stay? For the most part that has nothing to do with the lab but there’s a bit of a issue of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Stores want to carry what their customers demand. That’s GIA and IGI. Customers demand that because that’s what they’ve learned through advertising, Internet education, and education from those very same jewelers and their competitors.

Stores want to promote what makes them different and better than their competitors. That’s what stores do. In the case of AGS that mostly means the code of ethics, the education, and the standards of conduct. Most AGS members have long histories and outstanding reputations. This is not a coincidence. These are all good reasons to pick a jeweler to be sure, but the lab doesn’t really make the list. Any jeweler or dealer who wants to can submit things to the lab, and any dealer who wants to is welcomed to buy and sell AGSL graded goods. Neither the society nor the lab gets a vote in this. It’s a public market and it has nothing whatever to do with membership. The closest they come is that people who are otherwise hunting for an AGSL graded stone might first be inclined to look for a Society member to sell them one so they may get this question more often than non-members. I would equate this to a used car division of a Ford dealer. They can and do sell all makes and models, they sell whatever they get, but it’s seems likely that they would have a greater than average set of customers who are looking for Fords.

Is there some sort of responsibility or obligation owed by the members to ‘support’ the lab? I think not, but there are debates over this. In my mind, their primary duty is towards their customers, their staff, and their stockholders. Use or not of the lab should be based on one or more of those and if the lab can’t persuade them to do it, that’s the lab’s problem.

By the way, in the realm of disclosure if you call it that, I’m an AGS member and have been for years. I’m one of their top credentialed titleholders and I speak with them regularly on exactly this sort of topic.
As usual Neil, I agree with most of what you say. But to play devils advocate here for the sake of discussion I will pick at a couple of your points. First, in the spirit of full disclosure as you suggested, the Whiteflash store is an AGS member and I am a title holder, though not nearly as credentialed as you. (I am not saying that to blow smoke - the ICGA is an impressive accomplishment!).

You mention that consumers learn what to demand partially through the education and promotion that the stores provide, and that it is important for businesses to differentiate themselves. What better way to do both than to educate on the AGSL grading system and to promote AGS certified diamonds? This is part of what I don't get.

You suggest that it is the lab's job to persuade the jewelers to promote them. Don't you think it is the society's job really? I guess there was a time when the AGSL was partly owned by investors and there could have been sort of a conflict of interest, but now I would think the society would take a strong role in promoting the lab.

In answer to the question which you already answered, does a member have an obligation to promote and educate about AGSL? - not much that I can see. Aside from having an AGS certified gemologist on staff, I do not think there are any requirements. My question is ...why not? Seems like it would be entirely in keeping with growing the visibility and reputation of the lab, the society, and the mission of consumer education and protection.
 

Paul-Antwerp

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
2,859
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

In the spirit of playing devil's advocate, here is what I am thinking, with an analogy to chocolate (My original thinking was another analogy, but I think chocolates because of their nature AND because of their association with Belgium are a better fit :angel: )

Anyway, one of the quality-aspects of chocolate is the cocoa-content, up to the level that most of the chocolate sold in countries like the US, the UK, Holland, ... cannot legally be called chocolate in Belgium.

But, if chocolate with a cocoa-content of 65% could be wrapped in various packaging:
- one indicating that cocoa-content is over 60%,
- one indicating that cocoa-content is over 55%,
- one indicating that cocoa-content is over 30% (for argument's sake)
why is the choice of that wrapper then of importance for the chocolate of 65%?

After all, the wrapper does not in any way change the content, nor the quality (not to be mistaken for taste). And talking about the quality of chocolates, cocoa-content is definitely a major factor, but not the only one.

I would say that our industry in general has moved too far into selling wrappers and not chocolates. Personally, as a producer of chocolates, I am going against that trend.

Live long,
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Paul-Antwerp|1414518537|3773954 said:
In the spirit of playing devil's advocate, here is what I am thinking, with an analogy to chocolate (My original thinking was another analogy, but I think chocolates because of their nature AND because of their association with Belgium are a better fit :angel: )

Anyway, one of the quality-aspects of chocolate is the cocoa-content, up to the level that most of the chocolate sold in countries like the US, the UK, Holland, ... cannot legally be called chocolate in Belgium.

But, if chocolate with a cocoa-content of 65% could be wrapped in various packaging:
- one indicating that cocoa-content is over 60%,
- one indicating that cocoa-content is over 55%,
- one indicating that cocoa-content is over 30% (for argument's sake)
why is the choice of that wrapper then of importance for the chocolate of 65%?

After all, the wrapper does not in any way change the content, nor the quality (not to be mistaken for taste). And talking about the quality of chocolates, cocoa-content is definitely a major factor, but not the only one.

I would say that our industry in general has moved too far into selling wrappers and not chocolates. Personally, as a producer of chocolates, I am going against that trend.

Live long,
Paul, your analogy is apprapos on a number of levels. And to think that you did not mention GIA or AGS a single time - quite impressive Sir. :wink2:

So in the spirit of being a bit cryptic myself let me riddle you this: Your last sentence seems to be a complaint. But is it not exactly what gives makers of fine chocolate opportunity?

Wrappers and credentials and memberships in societies have become more and more important to the market as products have become more complex and specialized. But when the pendulum swings too far in the direction of window dressing, true quality has a chance to stand out. Consumers begin to say,"Ok the wrapper is nice. But now let's see what's inside".
 

cflutist

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
4,052
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Texas Leaguer|1414521834|3773982 said:
Paul-Antwerp|1414518537|3773954 said:
In the spirit of playing devil's advocate, here is what I am thinking, with an analogy to chocolate (My original thinking was another analogy, but I think chocolates because of their nature AND because of their association with Belgium are a better fit :angel: )

Anyway, one of the quality-aspects of chocolate is the cocoa-content, up to the level that most of the chocolate sold in countries like the US, the UK, Holland, ... cannot legally be called chocolate in Belgium.

But, if chocolate with a cocoa-content of 65% could be wrapped in various packaging:
- one indicating that cocoa-content is over 60%,
- one indicating that cocoa-content is over 55%,
- one indicating that cocoa-content is over 30% (for argument's sake)
why is the choice of that wrapper then of importance for the chocolate of 65%?

After all, the wrapper does not in any way change the content, nor the quality (not to be mistaken for taste). And talking about the quality of chocolates, cocoa-content is definitely a major factor, but not the only one.

I would say that our industry in general has moved too far into selling wrappers and not chocolates. Personally, as a producer of chocolates, I am going against that trend.

Live long,
Paul, your analogy is apprapos on a number of levels. And to think that you did not mention GIA or AGS a single time - quite impressive Sir. :wink2:

So in the spirit of being a bit cryptic myself let me riddle you this: Your last sentence seems to be a complaint. But is it not exactly what gives makers of fine chocolate opportunity?

Wrappers and credentials and memberships in societies have become more and more important to the market as products have become more complex and specialized. But when the pendulum swings too far in the direction of window dressing, true quality has a chance to stand out. Consumers begin to say,"Ok the wrapper is nice. But now let's see what's inside".

Both you and Paul make good points. But as a consumer I like to eat 72% dark chocolate and would like the wrapper and the contents to be as such. This is one reason why I have ordered a custom Cut-to-Order CBI diamond to be crafted by Paul.

barslrg_79410_01.jpg
 

denverappraiser

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
9,150
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Lots of devil’s advocates here. :twisted:

AGSL tech, for example the various ASET tools, are primarily used to educate customers about the importance of good cutting. They are available to all who wish to use them and although I think there’s a token equipment discount for members on AGS tools for the showroom, there’s no differentiation for members here. They can use it or not, as can anyone else. The same holds for lab services. Any jeweler who wants to can submit stones to the lab and can promote them as such when they come back. Membership has nothing to do with it. The lab is fast, highly professional, reasonably priced and a great choice, but they are not a member benefit.

So why don’t more jewelers do it? That’s a curious problem and I think it has to do with the nature of selling. The ASET tends to promote a very specific look. People look at stones and call one better than another and it makes some very tiny details quite prominent. It makes it hard to sell stones that aren’t in the sweet spot, even stones that otherwise look darned nice and that otherwise might sell just fine. That makes buying harder. It raises costs. It makes inventory management more difficult. It increases the time required for a sales presentation. It increases employee training costs. Selling GIA’s is a lot easier. The papers on all xxx’s look about the same and staggeringly few jewelers are actually prepared to discuss the differences even when pressed. They show a few along with a few with lesser pedigrees, the customer picks the one they like the best, and away they go. You got the best because excellent is the best. There’s nothing further to discuss.

There’s another curious problem. It has to do with Pricescope and Internet vendors. To the extent that cut can be quantified and the quality can be distilled down to an image, that makes the quality of that image highly important. It gives a bias to the places that are good at taking these pictures and the store a direct competitor of the ASET savvy Internet folks, like Whiteflash, not just the store down the street. Google ‘diamond ASET’ and after you get past AGS themselves, you find Whiteflash, Pricescope, GOG, Wink Jones and so on. Most B&M stores are definitely not interested in encouraging this particular line of research. They not only need to differentiate themselves from the other stores on the block, they need to differentiate themselves from YOU.

Unfortunately, this may apply to AGS lab grading as well. Google ‘AGS certified diamonds’. As you would expect, there’s several hundred thousand hits, including all of the usual suspects, but outside of AGS themselves, the only AGS member that makes it into the first 3 pages is Whiteflash (congratulations on that by the way). As with the above, savvy jewelers who are wishing to promote what makes THEM special are not going to want to encourage this particular search. People know, or think they know, what the GIA grades and documents mean but when presented with something unfamiliar like an AGS document or an acronym like ASET, the first place they go when they get home is Google. That leads down a path that jewelers don't necessarily want to encourage.
 

Paul-Antwerp

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
2,859
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Texas Leaguer|1414521834|3773982 said:
Paul-Antwerp|1414518537|3773954 said:
In the spirit of playing devil's advocate, here is what I am thinking, with an analogy to chocolate (My original thinking was another analogy, but I think chocolates because of their nature AND because of their association with Belgium are a better fit :angel: )

Anyway, one of the quality-aspects of chocolate is the cocoa-content, up to the level that most of the chocolate sold in countries like the US, the UK, Holland, ... cannot legally be called chocolate in Belgium.

But, if chocolate with a cocoa-content of 65% could be wrapped in various packaging:
- one indicating that cocoa-content is over 60%,
- one indicating that cocoa-content is over 55%,
- one indicating that cocoa-content is over 30% (for argument's sake)
why is the choice of that wrapper then of importance for the chocolate of 65%?

After all, the wrapper does not in any way change the content, nor the quality (not to be mistaken for taste). And talking about the quality of chocolates, cocoa-content is definitely a major factor, but not the only one.

I would say that our industry in general has moved too far into selling wrappers and not chocolates. Personally, as a producer of chocolates, I am going against that trend.

Live long,
Paul, your analogy is apprapos on a number of levels. And to think that you did not mention GIA or AGS a single time - quite impressive Sir. :wink2:

So in the spirit of being a bit cryptic myself let me riddle you this: Your last sentence seems to be a complaint. But is it not exactly what gives makers of fine chocolate opportunity?

Wrappers and credentials and memberships in societies have become more and more important to the market as products have become more complex and specialized. But when the pendulum swings too far in the direction of window dressing, true quality has a chance to stand out. Consumers begin to say,"Ok the wrapper is nice. But now let's see what's inside".

Hi Bryan,

My last sentence definitely was not a complaint, it was more an observation. It is also hidden in Neil's follow-up-post: Too many in our business find it easier to sell wrappers than to sell chocolate.

And as you also state, it is because this offers opportunities that I can afford going against that trend.

Live long,
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

denverappraiser|1414523584|3773993 said:
Lots of devil’s advocates here. :twisted:

AGSL tech, for example the various ASET tools, are primarily used to educate customers about the importance of good cutting. They are available to all who wish to use them and although I think there’s a token equipment discount for members on AGS tools for the showroom, there’s no differentiation for members here. They can use it or not, as can anyone else. The same holds for lab services. Any jeweler who wants to can submit stones to the lab and can promote them as such when they come back. Membership has nothing to do with it. The lab is fast, highly professional, reasonably priced and a great choice, but they are not a member benefit.

So why don’t more jewelers do it? That’s a curious problem and I think it has to do with the nature of selling. The ASET tends to promote a very specific look. People look at stones and call one better than another and it makes some very tiny details quite prominent. It makes it hard to sell stones that aren’t in the sweet spot, even stones that otherwise look darned nice and that otherwise might sell just fine. That makes buying harder. It raises costs. It makes inventory management more difficult. It increases the time required for a sales presentation. It increases employee training costs. Selling GIA’s is a lot easier. The papers on all xxx’s look about the same and staggeringly few jewelers are actually prepared to discuss the differences even when pressed. They show a few along with a few with lesser pedigrees, the customer picks the one they like the best, and away they go. You got the best because excellent is the best. There’s nothing further to discuss.

There’s another curious problem. It has to do with Pricescope and Internet vendors. To the extent that cut can be quantified and the quality can be distilled down to an image, that makes the quality of that image highly important. It gives a bias to the places that are good at taking these pictures and the store a direct competitor of the ASET savvy Internet folks, like Whiteflash, not just the store down the street. Google ‘diamond ASET’ and after you get past AGS themselves, you find Whiteflash, Pricescope, GOG, Wink Jones and so on. Most B&M stores are definitely not interested in encouraging this particular line of research. They not only need to differentiate themselves from the other stores on the block, they need to differentiate themselves from YOU.

Unfortunately, this may apply to AGS lab grading as well. Google ‘AGS certified diamonds’. As you would expect, there’s several hundred thousand hits, including all of the usual suspects, but outside of AGS themselves, the only AGS member that makes it into the first 3 pages is Whiteflash (congratulations on that by the way). As with the above, savvy jewelers who are wishing to promote what makes THEM special are not going to want to encourage this particular search. People know, or think they know, what the GIA grades and documents mean but when presented with something unfamiliar like an AGS document or an acronym like ASET, the first place they go when they get home is Google. That leads down a path that jewelers don't necessarily want to encourage.
Again, so much truth in what you say. But I will bite on a few of the points. You make the point that jewelers find selling GIA easier because they are not prepared to discuss technical differences. To me that suggests an opportunity for those that can speak to an ever evolving consumer market and present information that a new generation are requiring. I am not suggesting that all AGS jewelers convert to selling only AGSL graded diamonds, but they should present the option and develop the necessary skills to do it competently. AGS is in a position to help and encourage them to do so. Online companies have demonstrated there is a market for it.

And why is it that some online companies rank well on google for AGS related search terms? Because they have produced educational and promotional materials on these topics for their clientelle! There is nothing preventing the local jeweler from seperating himself from his neighbors by doing the same. The fact is that somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of consumers do NOT want to buy from an online company. Local jewelers have a decided advantage in that respect. But they need to give the consumer the information they are looking for, or they will actually turn some of those 90% into online buyers!

I also don't entirely buy the argument that the ASET tool makes minor details more prominent and therefore makes selling more difficut. By that logic we would also be reluctant to let a customer look at the stone with a loupe.

I know you were explaining the reality as you see it and not justifying or making excuses. We live in a competitive world and the internet is very much a part of the landscape today. We all have to deal with challenges from the competition in all forms. Like the fact that a consumer would much rather buy local if given competitive value and information.
 

Rockdiamond

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
9,711
Re: GIA, or AGSL, which do you prefer for cut grading and wh

Neil's post was spot on.
For me, as a buyer, I find that using a narrow filter restricts my ability to buy the best, most desirable diamonds. This makes AGSL style grading less desirable.

I love some Fancy Shaped diamonds that show a lot of leakage for example- and I won't be discouraged from buying them because as Paul alluded- people don't wear the wrapper, they need to eat the chocolate. I'm mixing metaphors here, but the fact is that people are led down a given path , trying the buy what is known as "the best cut"- who wouldn't love the best cut, right? They are expecting a certain result, which can lead to a lot of disappointment.
There's been a lot of heated discussions about ASET charts, green, leakage and other factors.
If one was buying based on ASET signatures it takes the brains out of the job- but also the heart and soul.
Personally I hope AGSL does start to offer wider cut grades on Fancy Shapes- and this may indeed be in the cards.

Bryan, the figure of 90% who don't want to buy online- would you say that's total diamond shoppers?
Because if we're speaking of folks spending $5k or more- or even folks looking for an AGSL graded stone, I would disagree that 90% don't want to buy online.
It seems to me that very few in that demographic do NOT shop online.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top