BGD recut diamond finally back home

[UrsTx]

Three and a half months later, I finally have my recut MBR diamond back from Brian Gavin/AGS.

The stone was sold to me originally as a 2.23ct G SI1 by lowly GSI lab (eye clean but I knew where a feather was located so I could see it). Sparkled nicely but I knew it could perform better.

After the recut, it's now a disco ball 2.08ct G SI1 by AGS. I can't see the feather anymore but it's still there. My guess is since the table is smaller, the facets hide it better. The cert doesn't address cut (why??) but polish and symmetry are both ideal. Here is the certificate link. https://www.agslab.com/reportTypes/gdqrnc.php?StoneID=104080389002&Weight=2.086&D=1

Here is the link that shared all the recut stats. [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/bgd-recut-stats-and-pics-are-in.214423/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/bgd-recut-stats-and-pics-are-in.214423/[/URL]

Next step is selling the diamond. It's potential sale funded the purchase of my new diamond. Too bad I'm tapped out of funds and can't get another 2ct for a set of awesome earrings!

I'm out of town tomorrow for a few days but will post more pics, incl hand shots, when I return - if it's not sold by then. Coworker is in major love with it and will let me know soon if they're moving forward with buying it.

Old 2.23ct solitaire setting.



New 2.08ct


Next to my current I color which is the one on top, the G is on the bottom

 

[UrsTx]

And a cool pic when the new cut reflected the red color of my macro lens.

 

[pfunk]

They probably didn't have the cut assessed on the report because it would have gotten dinged for facing up too small. The girdle is thick and it is deep so it faces up smaller than it should. That's probably why they opted for the very basic diamond quality report as opposed to a more complete report with cut grade.

 

[Rockinruby]

UrsTx, congrats on getting your recut back. It looks amazing! Definitely worth the wait! Sending you dust that it goes quickly!

 

[ame]

It looks great!

 

[tyty333]

It does look amazing...love seeing the arrows. I wonder why it was not test for light return? Can you ask BGD? Is this a lesser
than usual report? I dont know but if I were you I would want to find out.

 

[yssie]

They probably didn't have the cut assessed on the report because it would have gotten dinged for facing up too small. The girdle is thick and it is deep so it faces up smaller than it should. That's probably why they opted for the very basic diamond quality report as opposed to a more complete report with cut grade.

Ditto - it wouldn't merit the 0 cut grade on the DQD w/ Light Performance, and that's a more expensive report, so BGD probably decided it wasn't worth the extra cost since there wouldn't be any benefit.

It's a beautiful stone. Stones don't have to be AGS0s to be beautiful


Tyty - completely agree that AGSL's multitude of reports breeds confusion (FWIW the Gold DQR can come with or without a proportions-based cut grade for RBs; the DQR (non-Gold) permits max Pol/Sym grades of EX/EX, even for stones that would earn the Ideal grade on another report)
It would be superb if they'd resolve whatever identity crisis led to this merry medley and consolidate but they seem to be going in the opposite direction, with additional specialty reports now available for proprietary cuts... It's my one and only gripe re. AGSL. I guess we'll see if this is something that changes with the transition?

 

[solgen]

AGSL does seem to have too many products. There's

Platinum Diamond Quality Document
Diamond Quality® Document
Diamond Quality® Certificate
Diamond Quality® Report
Gold Diamond Quality® Report
Diamond Quality® Analysis


I think it would help them gain marketshare if they'd just have one or two.



And beautiful recut btw. Looking forward to seeing more pics of it.

 

[yssie]

solgen - more info on the differences here:
http://www.agslab.com/marketingpdfs/2010ProductReferenceGuide.pdf
https://www.agslab.com/products-archives-of-old-diamond-grading-documents.php

 

[Texas Leaguer]

They probably didn't have the cut assessed on the report because it would have gotten dinged for facing up too small. The girdle is thick and it is deep so it faces up smaller than it should. That's probably why they opted for the very basic diamond quality report as opposed to a more complete report with cut grade.

Ditto - it wouldn't merit the 0 cut grade on the DQD w/ Light Performance, and that's a more expensive report, so BGD probably decided it wasn't worth the extra cost since there wouldn't be any benefit.

It's a beautiful stone. Stones don't have to be AGS0s to be beautiful


Tyty - completely agree that AGSL's multitude of reports breeds confusion (FWIW the Gold DQR can come with or without a proportions-based cut grade for RBs; the DQR (non-Gold) permits max Pol/Sym grades of EX/EX, even for stones that would earn the Ideal grade on another report)
It would be superb if they'd resolve whatever identity crisis led to this merry medley and consolidate but they seem to be going in the opposite direction, with additional specialty reports now available for proprietary cuts... It's my one and only gripe re. AGSL. I guess we'll see if this is something that changes with the transition?

This is very true and the folks at AGSL understand their dilemma. It also makes it hard for them to decide what to do with new kinds of metrics that they are developing. Should it be included in an existing format, added as an addendum, be a standalone report? Should they stop offering certain formats altogether and simplify the menu? They obviously have some clients who want the options - this is a case in point where a lab client chose a specific report for specific reasons.

Ironically, doing the science may be the easier part! But delivering it without confusing the market, eliminating choices that some clients want, or impacting the validity or value of existing reports, is a real conundrum.

GIA may have been smart to keep it simple, keep it broad, rounded, averaged, and table based. But that's not who AGSL are and not what they do, so they are going to have to grapple with it!

 

[UrsTx]

Rockinruby, ame, tyty333, and Yssie - thank you. It may be not be the best cut in the end but it's a complete 180 from what it used to be. I love it and would keep it if I could.

pfunk, yssie, solgen, and Texas Leaguer - I agree there are too many products from AGS. I went online to figure out which report I have and which I could've gotten. I've emailed Brian and asked why they selected that particular report - and if that report really should have addressed the cut too. I'll let you know when I hear back from them.

Thank you all for your input and insight. I appreciate it.

 

[yssie]

They probably didn't have the cut assessed on the report because it would have gotten dinged for facing up too small. The girdle is thick and it is deep so it faces up smaller than it should. That's probably why they opted for the very basic diamond quality report as opposed to a more complete report with cut grade.

Ditto - it wouldn't merit the 0 cut grade on the DQD w/ Light Performance, and that's a more expensive report, so BGD probably decided it wasn't worth the extra cost since there wouldn't be any benefit.

It's a beautiful stone. Stones don't have to be AGS0s to be beautiful


Tyty - completely agree that AGSL's multitude of reports breeds confusion (FWIW the Gold DQR can come with or without a proportions-based cut grade for RBs; the DQR (non-Gold) permits max Pol/Sym grades of EX/EX, even for stones that would earn the Ideal grade on another report)
It would be superb if they'd resolve whatever identity crisis led to this merry medley and consolidate but they seem to be going in the opposite direction, with additional specialty reports now available for proprietary cuts... It's my one and only gripe re. AGSL. I guess we'll see if this is something that changes with the transition?

This is very true and the folks at AGSL understand their dilemma. It also makes it hard for them to decide what to do with new kinds of metrics that they are developing. Should it be included in an existing format, added as an addendum, be a standalone report? Should they stop offering certain formats altogether and simplify the menu? They obviously have some clients who want the options - this is a case in point where a lab client chose a specific report for specific reasons.

Ironically, doing the science may be the easier part! But delivering it without confusing the market, eliminating choices that some clients want, or impacting the validity or value of existing reports, is a real conundrum.

GIA may have been smart to keep it simple, keep it broad, rounded, averaged, and table based. But that's not who AGSL are and not what they do, so they are going to have to grapple with it!

Thanks for your thoughts Bryan And now you get more of mine in return, solicited or not

I greatly admire AGSL's dedication to exploring light return and their commitment to making the results of their pursuits available to their customers. The DQD Platinum LP report, IMO, embodies everything that makes AGSL special, everything that's earned them such a loyal market, everything that makes stones sold with their brand of report worth a premium.

What I don't particularly admire is their apparent insistence on accommodating all clients' needs... Sometimes there's merit to Just Saying No, and IMO this is definitely one of them! AGSL's description of the DQR: "Not all diamonds are Ideal, and when they are not - The AGS Diamond Quality® Report is the ideal choice" - this report, which permits vendors to use the esteemed AGSL name without the transparency of cut grading it's known and regarded for, IMO subverts that commitment. The Gold DQR with proportions-based cut grading, which permits vendors to use the esteemed and regarded AGSL name whilst avoiding any ickiness associated with cut grade demotion by the boundary-pushing, nitpicking, merciless Light Performance assessment, also (IMO) subverts that commitment.

AGSL has determined what they believe Ideal encompasses. I'm sure that definition will change with time, but it will morph into a new definition, not disappear entirely, and there are plenty of other labs to service non-ideal (by AGSL's DQD LP standards) stones for vendors who prefer not to subject certain specimens to that particular wringer... Ultimately, well, offering those additional reports certainly brings in revenue that they'd most likely lose otherwise, because many vendors aren't going to send non-AGS0/1 RBs to AGSL if they're restricted to the DQD w/ LP, but I really do believe the sheer variety of offerings dilutes the brand - and dilution equals devaluation. And that's a tremendous pity because I firmly believe they deserve every bit of prestige they've earned.

 

[yssie]

UrsTx I really hope you don't take the side discussion going on in your thread in any way it isn't intended!!

Your recut stone is obviously a beauty we have your personal experiences with it, your real-world photos, and simulations to prove it. That she wouldn't earn the the 0 cut grade w/ Light Performance analysis isn't (in my completely honest opinion) a statement on her looks... I've owned stones that both AGSL and GIA would have assigned very poor cut grades to that I know were gorgeous, in-person, and my favourite flavour of RB is firmly in GIA VG territory. I just don't see that sending her to AGS for a "lesser" report did her any favours, besides confusing her proud owner

 

[FancyIntense]

Congratulations on your recut! I'm glad to hear it's a disco ball now

**That diamond band is in perfect proportion with your ring, what are the specs or more specifically the size diamonds in it?

 

[MissGotRocks]

The recut created a beauty - so sorry you have to part with it!

 

[UrsTx]

UrsTx I really hope you don't take the side discussion going on in your thread in any way it isn't intended!!

Your recut stone is obviously a beauty we have your personal experiences with it, your real-world photos, and simulations to prove it. That she wouldn't earn the the 0 cut grade w/ Light Performance analysis isn't (in my completely honest opinion) a statement on her looks... I've owned stones that both AGSL and GIA would have assigned very poor cut grades to that I know were gorgeous, in-person, and my favourite flavour of RB is firmly in GIA VG territory. I just don't see that sending her to AGS for a "lesser" report did her any favours, besides confusing her proud owner

Thanks yssie. The side thread doesn't bother me; it's just the way it goes sometimes

 

[UrsTx]

Congratulations on your recut! I'm glad to hear it's a disco ball now

**That diamond band is in perfect proportion with your ring, what are the specs or more specifically the size diamonds in it?

Hi FancyIntense - the band is 1cttw but I'll have to get the stone details to you in a few days. The band is at home and I'm out of town a few days so I can't get to it at the moment. Check back around Wednesday night.

 

[OoohShiny]

That looks lovely and is clearly a big improvement, congratulations!

 

[yssie]

 

[UrsTx]

Congratulations on your recut! I'm glad to hear it's a disco ball now

**That diamond band is in perfect proportion with your ring, what are the specs or more specifically the size diamonds in it?

Hi FancyIntense - the band has approx .03ct size stones in a full eternity.

 

[UrsTx]

Here are a few more pics. The diamond reflects a lot of pastels IRL - I tried to catch them in the pics but only a few colors conveyed with the iphone.

 

[wildcat03]

Looks gorgeous! Hope you'll post sale details over in pre-loved when they are worked out!