a different opinion on AGS 0 princess cuts

[oldminer]

http://www.diamondtalk.com/forums/t63002-aretheagsprincesscutsallthat.html


I was taken by surprise when I read this earlier today. Seems like not everyone agrees with AGS. I have seen the AGS0 princess cuts a couple times and find them excellent. If you have a room with 100 gemologists you''d have 100 opinions about a diamond.....That what makes it such a personal business.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think we might be witnessing a bit of business strategy, a bit of politics all mixed with a dash of sour grapes

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/19/2005 8:58:59 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I think we might be witnessing a bit of business strategy, a bit of politics all mixed with a dash of sour grapes

May be It is truth for both party.

BTW. What mistake do you see in these DT posts?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Just to throw in another business strategy:

What can you do if you have claimed for years to choose the best performing princess-cuts, when suddenly you see that your stones do not qualify according to the new AGS-parameters?

Either you adapt, but then have the problem of changing suppliers.

Or you try to talk down the new system.

As an analogy, I know a number of Antwerp diamond dealers who claim that H&A-rounds look dull and dark.

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/19/2005 9:09:45 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 9/19/2005 8:58:59 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I think we might be witnessing a bit of business strategy, a bit of politics all mixed with a dash of sour grapes

May be It is truth for both party.

BTW. What mistake do you see in these DT posts?

I have read the thread a few days ago, and I do not feel like going through the nonsense again.

From memory, the most important un-truth is that the new system allows cutters to keep more weight. That is close to saying that the earth is flat.

Live long,

 

[valeria101]

Reminds me of the good old days when the HCA was used to sort through AGS0 rounds... Thwo clicks away and there is proof that this is still used to price things. Why not, after all. If a lab decided to grade cut, this just opens the can or worms enough to take a peek.

 

[WinkHPD]

Having long since been banned by DT I do not bother to go there to read, but I have heard from (name deleted to protect the privacy of the gentle person making the comment since he/she is still a participant there) and others that they have been doing their best to do a hatchet job on the excellent work done by the AGS.

If the thread referenced above is any indication that is certainly true. Having seen many AGS 0 cut princesses I have my doubts as to the validity of the brilliancescope shown, but then I am not a fan of the Brilliancescope anyway. The AGS 0 cut princesses that I have seen have, without exception, been incredibly beautiful stones.

Brad and Jan have their own axes to grind and any comments made might best be taken with a grain of salt. They are spearheading an effort to have retailers boycot any wholesaler who sells to vendors on the internet as it hurts their profitability. Interesting since they also sell on the internet and for a long time claimed that they were the cheapest vendors on the net... It hurts my heart to see what I consider to be blatant misrepresentations used to besmirch AGS when many in the trade think what AGS has done is phenominal in its benefit to the consumer.

OldMiner is kind when he states that when you have 100 gemologists in the room you will have 100 opinions. Although that may be true, what he does not say is that ten of them will be fomenting dissent just to further their own agendas, regardless of what they know the truth to be.

While those of you who know me know that I am loath to make negative statements, that thread was very disturbing to me and shows you what happens to the quality of consumer obtainable information when dissenting opinions are not allowed to post on a forum. You get an unbalanced presentation of opinions stated as facts. It makes me appreciate even more the excellent job done here by Leonid and Irina.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

I see that while I was writing my friend Paul Slegers decided to weigh in with his much more credible cutting credentials. While our day is nust beginning his is nearly at an end. Nice to see you my friend, good morning to you from Idaho and good night to you in Antwerp.

Wink

 

[oldminer]

Like Wink; I too am banned from DT. The unbalanced nature of information there is upsetting and a disservice to the trade and consumers. It is a direct result of a bias in the management of the site. Leonid is to be thanks and commended for what he has offered to all of us with Pricescope....

Three cheers for Leonid!

 

[belle]

Date: 9/19/2005 9:39:59 AM
Author: Wink
Having long since been banned by DT I do not bother to go there to read, but I have heard from (name deleted to protect the privacy of the gentle person making the comment since he/she is still a participant there) and others that they have been doing their best to do a hatchet job on the excellent work done by the AGS.

If the thread referenced above is any indication that is certainly true. Having seen many AGS 0 cut princesses I have my doubts as to the validity of the brilliancescope shown, but then I am not a fan of the Brilliancescope anyway. The AGS 0 cut princesses that I have seen have, without exception, been incredibly beautiful stones.

Brad and Jan have their own axes to grind and any comments made might best be taken with a grain of salt. They are spearheading an effort to have retailers boycot any wholesaler who sells to vendors on the internet as it hurts their profitability. Interesting since they also sell on the internet and for a long time claimed that they were the cheapest vendors on the net... It hurts my heart to see what I consider to be blatant misrepresentations used to besmirch AGS when many in the trade think what AGS has done is phenominal in its benefit to the consumer.

OldMiner is kind when he states that when you have 100 gemologists in the room you will have 100 opinions. Although that may be true, what he does not say is that ten of them will be fomenting dissent just to further their own agendas, regardless of what they know the truth to be.

While those of you who know me know that I am loath to make negative statements, that thread was very disturbing to me and shows you what happens to the quality of consumer obtainable information when dissenting opinions are not allowed to post on a forum. You get an unbalanced presentation of opinions stated as facts. It makes me appreciate even more the excellent job done here by Leonid and Irina.

Wink

well said wink

Date: 9/19/2005 9:45:10 AM
Author: oldminer
The unbalanced nature of information there is upsetting and a disservice to the trade and consumers. It is a direct result of a bias in the management of the site. Leonid is to be thanks and commended for what he has offered to all of us with Pricescope....

Three cheers for Leonid!

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Since the AGS princess cut grade is brand new, it isn''t particularly surprising that it does not have full industry acceptance. At this point it represents nothing but the AGS''s opinion. It remains to be seen whether the AGS has changed the way the princess cuts will be evaluated, or simply expressed the opinion of their lab - a respected but relatively small for profit organization with nowhere near the clout of the GIA.

Without even getting into the methodology used to evaluate light return, I personally believe that many AGS 0 princesses are simply too small for their carat weight to be regarded as well cut stones. The AGS, while paying lip service to "weight ratio", seems to have concluded that a well cut princess can be considerably smaller, in terms of its geometric spread, than a well cut round. I, and many others, disagree.

I do not sell princess cuts and have absolutely no economic stake in whether the market ultimately accepts or rejects the AGS''s point of view. My guess is that it will achieve partial acceptance - there will be those who promote it as hard science and those who deride it as nothing more than marketing mumbo jumbo. Smart consumers will look at the diamonds and decide for themselves who they agree with.

 

[fire&ice]

yep, with a grain of salt.

 

[Serg]

PS community has strong lobby to AGS and ”ideal cut”
DT community has strong lobby to GIA.
In first time DT was very democratic too.
I see some problems in PS community now. First problems in DT was small too.
Leonid are doing nice work. But one family can not save democracy, it is task for all community.

And PS community became a less tolerantly in last time.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 9/19/2005 11:23:03 AM
Author: Serg


PS community has strong lobby to AGS and ”ideal cut”
DT community has strong lobby to GIA.
In first time DT was very democratic too.
I see some problems in PS community now. First problems in DT was small too.
Leonid are doing nice work. But one family can not save democracy, it is task for all community.

And PS community became a less tolerantly in last time.

I agree with Serg. More independent results and studies are required to show the merits of any grading system or measuring tool to learn about their strong and week sides.

Although we hear reports that many AGS0 princess are looking great, we yet have to find out that all AGS0 Princess look great as well as there are no AGS-1,2...10 princess that look better than AGS0 ones.

Same scrutiny should be applied to GIA cut grading system as well as any cut evaluating tool out there (IS, BS, Imagem, etc). Such discussions should be done in a constructive manner without bashing anybody.

All these systems and tools might be very helpful if we'd know better their strong sides and limitations and won't use them as the marketing tools.

 

[Serg]

We need more real knowledge, less empty slogans, less aggressive labels.

Both systems have advantages and disadvantages.

We should not divide world on two parts who agree with us and who is disagree this us, who like we and who is quite different.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/19/2005 11:23:03 AM
Author: Serg

PS community has strong lobby to AGS and ”ideal cut”
DT community has strong lobby to GIA.
In first time DT was very democratic too.
I see some problems in PS community now. First problems in DT was small too.
Leonid are doing nice work. But one family can not save democracy, it is task for all community.
And PS community became a less tolerantly in last time.

Sergey,

I do agree and I do disagree. But then again, most things are not black or white either.

Although I may have contributed to it, I find most of the threads on PS these last weeks boring. While we are at the point where we can start to learn more about the peculiarities in fancy shapes, I have the impression that we are losing ourselves in extreme details of round brilliants.

Of course, discussing the merits or bad points of a round brilliant is much easier than those of a fancy shape. But I think it is high time to put all this in perspective.

As long as we all keep some kind of helicopter-vision, any problem will be resolved after some time. Are we somewhere on the same line?

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/19/2005 3:25:18 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 9/19/2005 11:23:03 AM
Author: Serg


PS community has strong lobby to AGS and ”ideal cut”
DT community has strong lobby to GIA.
In first time DT was very democratic too.
I see some problems in PS community now. First problems in DT was small too.
Leonid are doing nice work. But one family can not save democracy, it is task for all community.

And PS community became a less tolerantly in last time.

Sergey,

Although I may have contributed to it, I find most of the threads on PS these last weeks boring. While we are at the point where we can start to learn more about the peculiarities in fancy shapes, I have the impression that we are losing ourselves in extreme details of round brilliants.

Live long,

I agree too.
We need to do real testing of all systems. And if we do not initiate it here, who else will conduct good peer review?

 

[Capitol Bill]

Date: 9/19/2005 11:23:03 AM
Author: Serg


PS community has strong lobby to AGS and ”ideal cut”
DT community has strong lobby to GIA.
In first time DT was very democratic too.
I see some problems in PS community now. First problems in DT was small too.
Leonid are doing nice work. But one family can not save democracy, it is task for all community.



And PS community became a less tolerantly in last time.

Sergey,
I want you to know how much I appreciate the statement you made (above). I also appreciate the work of dedicated people (like you) who continue to try to de-mystify diamond cut for the benefit of the consumer (and the trade).

You mention GIA and AGS. I am astounded and impressed by the bold strides the AGS has been making in regard to its performance-based approach and I applaud their willingness to allow people on this forum (and elsewhere) to openly discuss and critique their work. As you know, any scientific discipline requires this at a very minimum.

And some very respected names associated with the GIA''s soon-to-be-introduced cut grading system are to be commended for their unique approach to observation-based cut grading. Unfortunately the GIA has effectively imposed a gag order on anyone who uses their "FacetWare TM" cut estimator tool. I would encourage you to read the "Terms of Use" agreement that all must agree to prior to accessing this tool. In particular, the language included in the paragraph under the section on ''PUBLICITY'' is particularly chilling to any meaningful, open discussion. You mention democracy. I would appreciate your thoughts on this brand of democracy.

Respectfully yours,
Bill Scherlag

 

[WinkHPD]

Qwest has banned me from the internet at work, a miserable state of affairs!

I have spent over three hours on hold and with tech support for this supposedly to be painless upgrade which went horribly wrong and there will be more to come tomorrow in the term of payment of hours while we try to figure out what went wrong, of course without the ability to return to the painless spot where we were...

I admit to having a bias towards AGS, I am much more interested in a system that excludes many stones from being the best rather than a system that includes a HUGE percentage of all stones as being in the best grade as GIA''s will. That is of course since I have always chosen to work with the best in cut. At the same time there is much validity in what Pricescope administrator said, that there are some AGS 1''s that are preferred to AGS 0''s, something that both Paul and I have agreed on with a couple of his stones that were AGS 1''s.

I have always maintained, and will continue to do so that the eye and the taste of the observer must be the final arbitor of what is right for that person. I have great hopes that both great labs will do great work, but I will admit that so far I am dissapointed in what I hear and read of GIA''s work, while I am very excited and pleased with what I have seen of AGS''s work. (Did I tell you lately that I LOVE the Aset tool?)

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/19/2005 6:26:04 PM
Author: Capitol Bill

Unfortunately the GIA has effectively imposed a gag order on anyone who uses their ''FacetWare TM'' cut estimator tool. I would encourage you to read the ''Terms of Use'' agreement that all must agree to prior to accessing this tool. In particular, the language included in the paragraph under the section on ''PUBLICITY'' is particularly chilling to any meaningful, open discussion. You mention democracy. I would appreciate your thoughts on this brand of democracy.

Respectfully yours,
Bill Scherlag

I agree Bill.
Perhaps as an active GIA Alumni'' you and other memebrs could request clarification on the intent and likelyhood that GIA would act against anyone involved in peer review?

As HCA inventor, I can accept their right to protect their data base from people simply collecting grade threshold information. But to deliberately stop peer review seems un-scientific for a foremost authority.

 

[Capitol Bill]

I agree Bill.
Perhaps as an active GIA Alumni'' you and other memebrs could request clarification on the intent and likelyhood that GIA would act against anyone involved in peer review?

Garry,
I''ll leave that task to other industry notables. I''m just a little pischer trying to stay out of the tall grass where the big dogs roam.
Bill

 

[Rhino]

I have some AGS "0"'s that came in store recently with varying results. Tomorrow when I get up to work I'll share my thoughts as I view them under various conditions. While I use the Bscope it is never my final determining factor for purchasing. Direct assessment with the eyes must take place in more than one lighting environment and the Bscope, as far as our testing is concerned represents only one. When I was sitting in our office last week and my lab assistant was scanning stones in I asked to see one that didn't get good results and in the lighting condition I was sitting in it looked just fine. That was office lighting. I'll do a more thorough *practical* exam tomorrow. Excellent thread. We'll also compare ASET images with Bscope results and see if there is any correllation and I will post them here if ya'll are interested. One thing I have noted in some of the stones we've examined under ASET is that not all AGS "0" princess cuts have the same ASET results. I have not had much time lately to do this correllation but since this thread popped up (and my first time reading here) perhaps we can all learn from this me thinks and I will be happy to show ya'll results coupled with my professional opinion. Dave ... if you like we can send you the test stones to see how they would test out on Imagem as well if you don't mind to compare and perhaps you can share those results here as well. Should be interesting.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

When I posted before I only read through the first couple of posts there. Just finished the whole thread. There is a misconception there regarding reflector based technology which they are not grasping and attacking as a result.

This has been a theme there now for a long time. It had been statements like I had read on that forum and others (as well as questions from consumers here) which had prompted me to write the current article I'm working on regarding this very subject. I pray it will bring resolve in the minds of those who misunderstand the information reflectors are giving, and also what they are not giving. Today I sat with my lens distributor and I believe I finally found the means by which to take accurate high quality ASET images with. If successful we'll use these in our study here and compare with Helium scans/GemAdvisor files and the images generated from DiamCalc as well as MSU based scores and Bscope (and if Dave would like, Imagem as well for comparison). Of course direct assessment in multiple, common lighting conditions takes preference as it is the *end consumer* who must be satisfied in the end but making these comparisons and assessing how they compare to various technologies etc. will make for good study. I would also be interested (if these stones are sent to Dave) for his professional opinion as he observes the same stones under the similar light conditions.

Peace,

 

[Serg]

re:We need to do real testing of all systems. And if we do not initiate it here, who else will conduct good peer review?

We can not test GIA system right now. First GIA cut grade will available in 2006 only.
1) GIA cut grading system has subjective part. FacetWare are giving upper limit for grade only. GIA will decreasing FacetWare grades for some diamonds subjectively.
2) GIA can change data in FacetWare in any time. GIA could collect statistic and change FacetWare every year
We can try find AGS 4 and show it is not bad and may even better then some AGS0.
Is it real important for market?
I think some Big Diamond holdings will create “My AGS ” and “My GIA”.
Such system will more stronger than labs grade and better correlate with market.
If stone will receive “My AGS0”, Holding will give two paper AGS0 and “MY AGS 0”
For diamond “My AGS1” and AGS0, consumer will receive AGS0 only.
Same for GIA.
DO you know next step of successful holdings?

I think, Both Labs had done critical mistake.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/20/2005 4:35:16 AM
Author: Serg

DO you know next step of successful holdings?

New cut ? or at least an economically restrictive one...



I think, Both Labs had done critical mistake.

From the post I understand that this mistake lies somewhere in the correlation with demand, but it is not clear. Could they avoid the development and use of further cut grades somehow? I find the incentives to do this (i.e. hold onto cut grade exclusivity) difficult to sustain.

Hoping that this post is not intrusive.

 

[oldminer]

ImaGem would be glad to process a few princess cuts, especially for a comparison of relative grades. We can definitely tell which are the best performers. We are still in the process of making grade cut off points for definitive grading, but we can provide comparative readings of Brilliance, Sparkle and Intensity for each stone. Love to have a go at it.

 

[oldminer]

If you want to roll on the floor laughing, go take a new look at the original thread on Diamond Talk. Since I created this thread, there is a last reply from bad Brad that is the quintessential response when there is nothing left to say........Stuff like that is what separates the men from the boys! What a way to show one''s true self.

There was NOTHING in my orignal post here that downgraded anyone or anything. Other people post what they will, but the truth is sometimes painful, isn''t it?

 

[WinkHPD]

You must have a better sense of humor than I do. I see nothing at all funny in the mean spirited comments. Nothing surprising either, just nothing funny. Even their administator is coming out to denigrate AGS'' work. Sad. Not funny.

Wink

 

[Rhino]

Hi Dave,

One reason I bring this up is because I just viewed a stone recently that got excellent results on the B'scope yet was a downright dog in office lighting. When taken into direct lighting it was a fireball. Stone was a GIA 4 (if memory serves me right). The factor that influenced the grade most was that light condition. The reason this is of interest to me and may also be to you is it will help correllate what Imagem's results appear to be in real world conditions and how this compares to GIA's and AGS's heaviest influencing factors contributing to their grade. If there is any set of eyes I trust Dave ... it is yours.

From what I have seen of Imagem, so far it appears it correllates most with diamond appearance in direct light/spot light conditions. If you'd like to see how it correllates with office type lighting I'm about to post an example you may find quite interesting once I get up to work.

Sergey's comments here makes total sense. Valeria... Sergey is not looking to hijack this thread and neither am I. I'm sorry if it appears so. We both want to get to the bottom of certain answers regarding the state of cut grading that we can seek answers to together and arrive at sound conclusions.

With both technologies and experience we can determine here what are the metrics that will be influencing AGS or GIA's cut grade the most. AGS may be placing heavier emphasis on contrast than they are dispersion. GIA may be placing heavier empahsis on brightness than they are dispersion/fire.

Through observation testing and correllation with certain technologies we can determine this together fellow peers. The technologies will help communicate certain things since we are all on different parts of the planet. Not only will this be beneficial in helping us to understand these metrics that are influencing each cut grading system most, but at the same time the PS community benefits by learning along with us. I don't mind posting results and discussing them unless you guys would rather take this in pm. I'm not looking to paint any lab in bad light. I have friends in both however as Sergey has said there are certain weakness' in both systems which need to be discussed and hashed out and if I can I would like to help in any way I can.

Regards,

 

[Rhino]

Hey Wink,

How are ya bro? I don't think Dave meant it in the way you took it. He knows its a sad situation there as well. We hope to shed further light here so those kind of responses are avoided over there. It's a common mistake of making a judgement before all the data is assessed. Right now they are pointing fingers at AGS and completely forgetting the message of Matthew 7:1-5. Our attempt here must be to first remove any debree in our eyes (as a team) before proceeding because we do not want to arrive at any faulty conclusions without a more thorough knowledge of the factors involved. Let's work towards that goal.

Peace,