Need help deciding on a 1.8 ct round ideal diamond

Date: 2/26/2006 11:04:22 AM
Author: XChick03
I thought it can be an AGS0 with just 'very good' polish and symmetry, it just won't be a triple ideal AGS000.

ETA or maybe I am thinking of an ideal cut by GIA standards and not an AGS0.

Date: 2/26/2006 11:39:12 AM
Author: XChick03
Oh okay, I am still learning. But it could be an AGS ideal cut without being an AGS0? Maybe that's what I was thinking of...

This is why I was thinking GIA gave ideal cuts, I guess WF labels them as 'ideal.'

Date: 2/26/2006 12:05:04 PM
Author: belle

we're all learning, everyday. that's why ps is so great!
if you consider getting an '0' in light performance from ags an ideal cut, then yes, you can still get an ags graded ideal without it being an ags0. when not graded by ags (the only lab to grade 'ideal') the term 'ideal' itself is used mainly to describe well cut stones. in the case of the example you posted, the stone is not graded ideal but it is generally considered ideal because of the cut. using the term 'ideal' is a way to define a group of well cut stones that are superior to the pedestrian cuts you see everyday.

Date: 2/26/2006 12:37:52 PM
Author: JohnQuixote


Right. Ideal is a loosely used term with varying definitions. Many refer to diamonds with proportions falling into AGS' old parameters (pre July 2005) 'Ideal.' But Belle is right: To earn the current 0 grade in light performance requires that the diamond actually be graded by the AGS.

I speak in terms of 'traditional ideal proportions' versus 'current ideal proportions' (proportions parameters upgraded July 2005) versus AGS0 - which is the 0 grade in light performance. If you have a sarin/helium you can tell whether a diamond has traditional or current ideal proportions, but only a grading document from the AGS can award the 0 in light performance.

Of course, diamonds with an old DQD are kind of 'grandfathered' in as AGS0, but that's a traditional, proportions-based 0, not the current light-performance based 0.