- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Date: 10/22/2005 4:11:42 PM
Author: RockDoc
So far from what I''ve seen is that I''d recommend the AGS 0 grading to be sub divided, possibly a grading of AGS0-a / b and c that would be a little more discriminating of the differences. The 0-a 0-b and 0c perhaps honing in on the variances that do genuinely exist.
Rockdoc
I pray to all the deities of all the worlds religions that this NEVER comes to pass!!!!!!!
Already there are way too many already who buy only the paper, regardless of how the diamond actually looks. Some of the world''s most beautiful diamonds are virtually unsaleable as they are branded with AGS 1 cut grades. Too valuable to sell for the same price as an AGS 5 (about the average that we see currently on princess cuts for example) they languish in the safes of Jewelers who bought them for their beauty, unsaleable to those in search of only the most sought after AGS 0.
Now you would create a new brand of pariah, the "lowly" AGS 0c. These "horrible" imposter class AGS 0''s would be unworthy for the paper chaser to even consider. Unless of course you are willing to sell them below cost, since they really have no premium value, not like a "real" AGS 0a.
Please, all ye Deities, assist this poor supplicant in his prayers. Please let beauty be recognized for beauty''s sake and cast out this vile hairsplitting devisive suggestion! Please let this suggestion die a quick and painless death, may it please the Deities that it be born still and silent, never to cause needless pain to the poor jewelers who strive only to bring beauty to the worlds diamond buyers. (And while you are at it, could you please smite any jewelers who are not worthy to do so!?)
Wink
P.S. The above written with some humor intended, some actual prayer intended and much more than a little truth expressed. I have had AGS 1 princess cuts that I thought more beautiful than AGS 0 princess cuts that were incredibly difficult to sell on the net and sold to the first looker in-house as the beauty was way stronger than the paper.
While in truth, there is much to like about the GIA research and grading system, ie, if it looks good, sell it (a gross over simplification, please do not pillor and post me for my early morning humor, I will only plead cough syrup as a mitigating factor), I prefer the more quantifiable work being done currently by the AGS. I would prefer however that we not get into forty cut grades and subgrades and then jump to an even more unmanageable quantity when we discover how to further subdivide the subdivisions. At some point we must look at the stone and know with our hearts, does this thing sing or not?
To be able to do the research will be for some an interesting excercise and may lead to the ability to create even more beautiful diamonds. But to foist this knowledge into an already complex grading system will serve only to futher confuse the poor guy who only wants to buy a beautiful diamond for his lady. Please, let the research continue, but let''s keep the measurements and results quantified into a fairly easily learned system for the lay person. After all if I had to learn doctorate level physics to buy a car, I should probably still be riding my bike...