A press release from EGL-USA

[oldminer]

After exahaustive on-site trials of various Light Behvaior grading tools, EGL-USA has selected ImaGem for their new 360 Degree report. Having been a proponent of direct light assessment and a consultant to ImaGem for the past 12 years, this news is music to my ears. I realize that I have not personally been able to prove the case about ImaGem, but I believe that a larger lab with a real research staff and a regular budget will make a far better attempt to prove the strength of the direct assessment strategy. The groundwork has been presented many times on Pricescope for those who wish to find out more.

Look for the 360 Degree report to begin to make its way to the trade in the coming weeks and months. I have been assured that they intend to bring full disclosure to the dealers and to consumers with this report as the EGL-USA lab brings itself into a stronger position on accurate grading. I realize that there will remain many skeptics. Its to be expected. Ultimately, the proof will be self evident and it is up to EGL-USA to make the best use of this new technology. All I can do is give them the support I feel they deserve and hope they do the kind of job that improves the diamond trade along with building up their own reputation.

 

[Regular Guy]

Dave,

Many congratulations; I know you've worked hard on this.

Secondarily, two questions/thoughts...

1) I think in the past, you've queried the board perhaps on the preferred way you'd like info displayed vis-a-vis scores...to include specific numerical data for cut/light performance, versus just the general grade (excellent, etc.). Will the presentation be one or the other?

2) Personally...and even though it may be more a function of scare tactics vs a majority case (even you have willingly supposed the likelihood that diamonds scoring well via ray trace should usually also perform well in imagem)...still, it would be interesting to me if you can even come up with some odd ball examples where an AGS0 scores visibly worse than, say, an AGS1, where common visual examination would agree with the discrepant imagem result. I'm thinking of situations where, for example...probably with some SI options, where there are clouds, and where Garry H has suggested these can sometimes dull the performance, but where the scan by AGS...by my perhaps too naive calculation, would not register any hit as a result of such clouds.

Once again, Dave, congratulations and good wishes on your success with this relationship.

 

[denverappraiser]

Congratulations Dave.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Good work. Congratulations, Dave.

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[oldminer]

One of he important vendors of diamonds on the Internet has seen for themselves AGS 0 princess cuts which have a range from Good to Excellent+, a five grade range with the VeriGem device. The visual appearance is somewhat different between the lowest to the mid-grade and from the mid-grade to the top grade. Just as with color and clarity, the VeriGem and the arbitrary verbal grading system is beyond the level of distinct visual difference between single grades. One could say that all five top arbitrary grades are pretty much equal. This is sort of the GIA approach to "Excellent". It might please more people iniitially, but I feel that it would be a flawed approach to diamond grading.

All five top grades are pretty diamonds and a consumer is free to select a pretty diamond which best fits their preferences and their budget. This is a great reason to have many choices and price levels. The VeriGem device works well, and it is up to the user to determine if the arbitarary grades we have chosen fit their method or if they want to use the device with some modification to the categories they choose to name levels of performance. We may see some confusion over this at the start, just like AGS and GIA don't directly agree on grading or terminology. Over time, I expect it to sort itself out because the market is very smart and prices will move to adjust to actual "value". Value and Price are good tools for making real Grade level determinations based on the true experts, diamond cutters and dealers.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 6/4/2007 12:34:41 AM
Author: Regular Guy

2) Personally...and even though it may be more a function of scare tactics vs a majority case (even you have willingly supposed the likelihood that diamonds scoring well via ray trace should usually also perform well in imagem)...still, it would be interesting to me if you can even come up with some odd ball examples where an AGS0 scores visibly worse than, say, an AGS1, where common visual examination would agree with the discrepant imagem result. I''m thinking of situations where, for example...probably with some SI options, where there are clouds, and where Garry H has suggested these can sometimes dull the performance, but where the scan by AGS...by my perhaps too naive calculation, would not register any hit as a result of such clouds.

With respect to more cleanly going "toe to toe," and where I thought I could see room for an "actuals" vs "purported," I was thinking in terms of rounds, myself...where the margins are tight. And the variance, based on the actuals that imagem works with, could, I would hope, shine.

Of course...this would be step one.

To get perspective...you''d want to have an educated guess about how often there is a discrepancy between Imagem (actual) and AGS (projected) results. I''d be interested, anyway.

 

[oldminer]

With projected results it is difficult to know when anything is incorrectly forecast. There are a myriad of variables to measure and no one knows what exact importance to give each variable. It is not a problem solved by letting every variable have equal weight. Some variables are truly important and some of lesser degrees of importance. Error in projection can be blamed on faulty measurement and not the fact that a projection is not a best method for creating Grades. Projections are better for creation of improved cuts or innovative, new cuts. Grading is best done by direct assessment.

If one looks at the AGS 0 cut stones, one sees pretty diamonds. Then each individual makes a choice about which diamond they like and can afford. Only an engineer buys a diamond based on performance numbers and gives it to his engineer fiance' in a dark room, still in the box all wrapped up, and says, "Isn't this the most wonderful diamond? The numbers are tops." She then says, "I love these high number diamonds and I know it is a wonderful stone." They never need to see the diamond because they have confidence in numbers. The rest of us are left to wonder why they never looked at the diamond at all and how they could love it so much.

I am reasonably certain, but have not yet had the opportunity to check, some AGS 1 and AGS 2 cut stones may have better light performance than some AGS 0 stones. Those 1's and 2's could be excellent in beauty and value. Is someone "wrong"? The answer is "NO". The systems are different, but the goal of getting the consumer helpful advice has not been compromised. Technology advances and knowledge changes. There is no grading system cast so deeply in stone that it cannot be altered by market pressure and new appoaches. Keeping yourself informed to advancement or change is key to the fluidity of modern technological advancement.