AGS 2 or AGS 0 - The ''Candidate'' vs Parametric grades

[RockDoc]

RE: The " I don''t care" position of analysis.


Storm.....

You mention scans and symmetry. I am curious as to what you''re using to formulate the opinion so often referred to as "stormworthy".

Are these Helium scan, and or a combination of a wireframe graphic via proportion scan or with DiaCalc? Maybe it is something else?

I do think however that choosing to be a critic - requires that you actually see the stone for a multitude of reasons.

Unless you are being sent stones to test, and have the testing equipment and trained eyes to interpret the results, rendering the " I don''t care" opinion or the " I do care" based on is certainly does not meet the standard of being independent or totally objective.

Over the past number of years, I do notice that even the well reputed manufacturer''s of cutting change their "formulas" of how to make what they consider to be within the "tight" ranges of what they are cutting. I am able to do this because I do get to see hundreds of stones. So when a cutter changes something on a consistent basis I know it. This isn''t a negative, but I think that everyone gets better with time, practice and experience.

I am really curious as to the quantity, of stones that you actually can PERSONALLY see and what your jusitification is for assigning Stormworthy as a critique that many readers of the forum who are consumers have and do rely on.

Rockdoc

 

[strmrdr]

First off RockDoc if you want a fight you picked a good day for it because i'm feeling crappy enough to give ya one...

second: There is a huge difference between caring who the cutter/supplier is and how tight the average stone is they cut for a vendor than caring about well cut stones.

third: with rounds my personal preferences are well known and there are very nice stones outside that preference that are likely just as good in their own way, so I keep pretty quiet about it except when it comes to turning down dogs.

fourth: With asschers there isn't a better system out there so some people choose to ask my advise some take it some don't and that's kewl.

fifth: the stormworthy designation was not my invention but that of other consumers so some must see some value in it.

six: using a good vendor goes a long way to weeding out stones with non-cut performance issues. which is another reason for the dont care.

seventh: If we want to talk independence how about showing personal 8* along side the requested stones when doing a comparison of stones a consumer had a vendor send you?
Sounds like favoritism to me :{

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 2/22/2007 7:42:11 AM
Author: Serg


On one AGS chart P41Cr35T57 has grade AGS 3, P40.6Cr36T57 has grade AGS 0

On other AGS chart P41Cr35T57 has grade AGS 0, P40.6Cr36T57 has grade AGS 1

just Conservative policy can not explain it

1) To my knowledge, no AGS paper was issued based on the 2004-2005 GUIDELINE charts

2) The two sets of charts are for TWO DIFFERENT girdle thicknesses and star facet lengths, and some regions of the underlying factors have rather steep gradients for performance factors. One only has to look at MSU and GIA"s published works to validate this statement.

3) The 2004-2005 charts were based on NO DEDUCTIONS AT ALL for any of FOUR factors, otherwise a FULL grade deduction was given for EACH FACTOR, and the Full grade deductions were summed. This produced very steep cutoffs in grades, as I pointed out to AGS at the time.

A factor that had a 0.01 deduction would receive a FULL GRADE DEDUCTION based on that factor, which was apparently unreasonable, since there were three factors involved. So three tiny deductions would result in a large TOTAL GRADE DEDUCTION.

4) PRIOR to the release of the PGS software, it is my understanding that the algorithm was modified to impliment an algorrithm that established CUMMULATIVE THRESHOLDS and SMOOTHED though those boundaries.

The analogy was: do you calculate grades by a staircase approach or better represent the cummulative grade by smoothing through the steps and appropriately weighting the individual factors.

Those who have the PGS grading software can see the individual contributors to the overall AGS grade.

The AGS grading system has never been intended to be a parametric based dumbed down lookup table system.

AGS takes the time and resources to look at the stone in its composite form through ray tracing technology. I think it has served the industry well.

 

[Serg]

Date: 2/22/2007 2:12:35 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 2/22/2007 7:42:11 AM
Author: Serg




On one AGS chart P41Cr35T57 has grade AGS 3, P40.6Cr36T57 has grade AGS 0

On other AGS chart P41Cr35T57 has grade AGS 0, P40.6Cr36T57 has grade AGS 1

just Conservative policy can not explain it

1) To my knowledge, no AGS paper was issued based on the 2004-2005 GUIDELINE charts

2) The two sets of charts are for TWO DIFFERENT girdle thicknesses and star facet lengths, and some regions of the underlying factors have rather steep gradients for performance factors. One only has to look at MSU and GIA's published works to validate this statement.

3) The 2004-2005 charts were based on NO DEDUCTIONS AT ALL for any of FOUR factors, otherwise a FULL grade deduction was given for EACH FACTOR, and the Full grade deductions were summed. This produced very steep cutoffs in grades, as I pointed out to AGS at the time.

A factor that had a 0.01 deduction would receive a FULL GRADE DEDUCTION based on that factor, which was apparently unreasonable, since there were three factors involved. So three tiny deductions would result in a large TOTAL GRADE DEDUCTION.

4) PRIOR to the release of the PGS software, it is my understanding that the algorithm was modified to impliment an algorrithm that established CUMMULATIVE THRESHOLDS and SMOOTHED though those boundaries.

The analogy was: do you calculate grades by a staircase approach or better represent the cummulative grade by smoothing through the steps and appropriately weighting the individual factors.

Those who have the PGS grading software can see the individual contributors to the overall AGS grade.

The AGS grading system has never been intended to be a parametric based dumbed down lookup table system.

AGS takes the time and resources to look at the stone in its composite form through ray tracing technology. I think it has served the industry well.

re:The two sets of charts are for TWO DIFFERENT girdle thicknesses and star facet lengths, and some regions of the underlying factors have rather steep gradients for performance factors. One only has to look at MSU and GIA's published works to validate this statement.

3% and 3.5% . I informed about yearly too. I think such difference in girdle height for such value can not explain difference in grade appearance

star facets 50% and 55%/ Again I do not think it could be explanation( between AGS 0 and AGS3). But it is look what AGS do not like publish old and new charts exact for same proportions
re:3) The 2004-2005 charts were based on NO DEDUCTIONS AT ALL for any of FOUR factors, otherwise a FULL grade deduction was given for EACH FACTOR, and the Full grade deductions were summed. This produced very steep cutoffs in grades, as I pointed out to AGS at the time.

See http://oct.gemology.ru/oct/mss/57_Guidelines.htm

Here Grade is same like from AGS database2005

re:I think it has served the industry well.

just well or good enough?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 2/22/2007 2:57:19 PM
Author: Serg
re:The two sets of charts are for TWO DIFFERENT girdle thicknesses and star facet lengths, and some regions of the underlying factors have rather steep gradients for performance factors. One only has to look at MSU and GIA''s published works to validate this statement.

3% and 3.5% . I informed about yearly too. I think such difference in girdle height for such value can not explain difference in grade appearance

star facets 50% and 55%/ Again I do not think it could be explanation( between AGS 0 and AGS3). But it is look what AGS do not like publish old and new charts exact for same proportions
re:3) The 2004-2005 charts were based on NO DEDUCTIONS AT ALL for any of FOUR factors, otherwise a FULL grade deduction was given for EACH FACTOR, and the Full grade deductions were summed. This produced very steep cutoffs in grades, as I pointed out to AGS at the time.

See http://oct.gemology.ru/oct/mss/57_Guidelines.htm

Here Grade is same like from AGS database2005

re:I think it has served the industry well.

just well or good enough?

Serg.. READ my post.. The ORIGINAL charts would give a full CUT grade deduction for EACH factor, and then the grades were summed, NO MATTER how SMALL the individual factor deduction. ie 0.00001 would get a 1.0 deduction

The THRESHOLD tolerance for a grade deduction for a factor was ZERO, in effect, and staircased.

This was changed to give PARTIAL grade deductions based on smoothing for each factor and then summed to arrive at the final grade.

I''m sorry that people don''t have a nice lookup table, but it can''t, and shouldn''t, be done that way.

PGS software gives the individual factors deductions.. and they are fractional, not WHOLE grades.. ie 0.1,0.2,0.3....0.9 rather than binary, ie a 0 or 1 .

The OVERALL GRADE is binary, i.e. it falls within the "X" grade paradigm.

SOMETIMES, because of the particular stones composite, you are going to have rather steep deduction gradients.. That''s life. You see it in EVERY CUT GRADE system, including yours!!!!!!!!

Another way of putting it is, are you going a tenth of a mile an hour over the speed limit or 20 miles per hourover.
And how accurate is the radar gun? That has to be factored into the decision whether to give you a ticket or not.

 

[Serg]

re:SOMETIMES, because of the particular stones composite, you are going to have rather steep deduction gradients.. That''s life. You see it in EVERY CUT GRADE system, including yours!!!!!!!!

Marty,

Firstly we have not cut grade.
Secondly there is easy avoid such problem in Cut grade system

In third what is right AGS charts for cutters?

 

[michaelgem]

Date: 2/22/2007 4:17:22 PM
Author: Serg

Firstly we have not cut grade.

Secondly there is easy avoid such problem in Cut grade system

In third what is right AGS charts for cutters?

Sergey Sivovolenko CEO OctoNus

Here is a paraphrase of some of what Sergey had to say. I hope I got it right.

3% and 3.5% . I was also informed of that a year ago . I think such a difference in girdle height for such values cannot explain the difference in the grade.

star facets 50% and 55% Again I do not think it could be the explanation (between AGS 0 and AGS3).

It is easy to avoid such problems in a Cut grade system

What are the right AGS charts for the cutters?

Sergey Sivovolenko CEO OctoNus

From a research and educational perspective, I would like to know the current thinking and position of the AGS as to the extent of the Ideal 0 range. It seems like an update and redo of these original guideline charts would go a long way toward accomplishing this. Such an update would also clarify AGS’s position concerning the issues and questions raised by Sergey.

We know the caveats and limitations in the use of these updated cut grading estimation charts. There are similar caveats and limitations in the use of the current charts. So I see no harm in updating them to reflect the AGS’s current Ideal 0 range.

It is understood that this would only be in regard to a mathematically symmetrical diamond with the specifications listed in the charts.

Michael Cowing

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 2/22/2007 4:17:22 PM
Author: Serg
re:SOMETIMES, because of the particular stones composite, you are going to have rather steep deduction gradients.. That''s life. You see it in EVERY CUT GRADE system, including yours!!!!!!!!

Marty,

Firstly we have not cut grade. What would you then properly call the Diamond Calc performance analysis and the MSU study? I''ll defer to your "definition", if I inappropriately referred to it a "cut grade".

Secondly there is easy avoid such problem in Cut grade system Give the unrounded numerics, along with confidence bounds is what I suggest, and then borderline stones could be properly compared.

Is it a 0.99 or a 1.01.. rather than a 0 or 1 is what I have suggested, and the PGS software breaks it down so. Perhaps that should also be on the "paper". The "high H" versus "low G" analogy.

In third what is right AGS charts for cutters? The most conservative charts, as most have already adapted to, if they desire, I believe. The intersection of the "best" of all grading systems is a good starting point, if the cutters are interested in that aspect. Given the seemingly overemphasis on weight retention in the vast majority of the trade because of long time arbitrary weight boundaries, this is a "problem" not easily solved.



I know this is an "issue" for "planning" software and maximizing yield versus "grade", i.e. profit, but that is a separate non linear "optimization" decision for the cutters to make, especially if one wants to "satisfy" or optimize both "all" different theoretical and "direct measurement" technologies paradigms (known or unknown).

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 2/22/2007 5:07:25 PM
Author: michaelgem

From a research and educational perspective, I would like to know the current thinking and position of the AGS as to the extent of the Ideal 0 range. It seems like an update and redo of these original guideline charts would go a long way toward accomplishing this. Such an update would also clarify AGS’s position concerning the issues and questions raised by Sergey.

Michael Cowing

I guess you need more outside "input" for your "booK".

Do the work yourself, Mr Cowing!!!!!!!!!! Generate your own "charts"..

For others, who would use, or misuse the charts, the issued AGS charts are "guidelines" but not "GUARANTEES" that, a particular "idealy" symmetric stone, MIGHT GET THAT particular grade, as Garry initially said.. It might get better or it might get worse.

The AGS has tried to eliminate the "subjectivity" from the cut grading process, other than establishing boundaries. A stone that fits the GIA EX paradigms might not get EX because the SUBJECTIVE "symmetry" comes into play, where in the AGS system, "symmetry" and balance is inherently part of the overall equations determining the light performance metric. TWO DIFFERENT philosophies.. I agree with AGS, BTW.

Garry summed it up at the beginning of this thread:

"AGS uses a 3 D scan of a the actual diamond and ray tracing software they developed after the lines of DiamCalc and the 1990''s MSU studies.

The charts from AGS are for the use of cutters to know the safe proportions to get AGS 0. There is some lee way however and if everything is very tight in the sym dept, and any painting digging works with those particular proportions - then stones can be outside those boundaries and still pass the AGS PGS software testing."

 

[strmrdr]

Personally I think a new chart wouldn''t help, someone could still take the ASET/Dispersion maps cut a combo that does well on all 3 and get a 0 for stone not on the charts and start this conversation all over again.

 

[RockDoc]

RE; Storm''s crappy mood.


No Storm I didn''t intend to start an argument with you.

I asked some simple questions, which were directly at how much personal observation you had done, for which brands, and asked whether your what your conclusions were based using.

You didn''t address the questions with answers...

Instead, you attack me, for showing an 8* to client who are here, and want to know what a superior stone would look like in comparison to others. My 8* is NOT for sale, not trying to sell it, nor do I sell 8*. I am an information provider, who through informative education informs people and their eyes, to what and how any differences compare. Hard to select a preference is you don''t see examples. I don''t make the purchasing decision. I leave that to clients. I simply show comparison of many different type stones, so that people who are here can see "real life" examples.

What I do is by customer request. Decisions are up to the clients. At least they get the benefit of seeing different in person examples so they can make those decisions from an informed basis.

No reason for you to be offensive.....just simple questions that I asked which should really have simple, truthful answers.

Rockdoc

 

[michaelgem]

Date: 2/22/2007 6:34:56 PM
Author: strmrdr
Personally I think a new chart wouldn''t help, someone could still take the ASET/Dispersion maps cut a combo that does well on all 3 and get a 0 for stone not on the charts and start this conversation all over again.

Strmrdr,

Everyone doing work in this area including myself has at many occasions expressed opinions about the range of Ideal. I first put my opinions out there in the Journal of Gemmology seven years ago and numerous times since. I pointed out in a recent article in NY Diamond that most are in close agreement as to the center of that range even though the extent of Ideal is controversial. As you say, some require "tighter” diamonds, while others are more lenient, either because they don’t see enough difference in diamond beauty, or they allow that to a degree different observers have differing tastes.

I simply want to know the new AGS opinion, which they have said has evolved to be somewhat less tight than when they generated the current cut grading guidelines.

Like it or hate it (the PriceScope consensus) the GIA charts reflect their opinion of Excellent under the listed constraints of half length, star length, symmetry, spread, polish etc.

All I am asking is for AGS charts that reflect AGS''s opinion of Ideal in a similar fashion. We know the caveats and limitations in the use of these updated cut grading estimation charts. There are similar caveats and limitations in the use of the current charts. So I see no harm in updating them to reflect the AGS’s current Ideal 0 range.

It is understood that this would only be in regard to a mathematically symmetrical diamond with the specifications listed in the charts.

Michael Cowing

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/22/2007 6:34:56 PM
Author: strmrdr
Personally I think a new chart wouldn''t help, someone could still take the ASET/Dispersion maps cut a combo that does well on all 3 and get a 0 for stone not on the charts and start this conversation all over again.

Storm Roc is correct - it is nice to be able to simplify things, and the AGS ASET charts do that - but they are purely face up. Which is why I direct people to look at fancies thru an A
SET while rocking the stone.

I saw this stone yeasterday - It is amazingly stunning in person (with 2 eyes) yet you would have trashed it I am sure based on its ASET view, and AGS would probably never have looked at these proportion sets for their system.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/22/2007 8:27:47 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Storm Roc is correct - it is nice to be able to simplify things, and the AGS ASET charts do that - but they are purely face up. Which is why I direct people to look at fancies thru an A
SET while rocking the stone.

I saw this stone yeasterday - It is amazingly stunning in person (with 2 eyes) yet you would have trashed it I am sure based on its ASET view, and AGS would probably never have looked at these proportion sets for their system.

oops

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/22/2007 11:33:40 AM
Author: RockDoc
I just don''t see how charts can be used for grading. I think it is irresponsible to issue a grade just based on the numbers. There are far too many other factors that can affect light performance in a stone.

How the crystal was oriented when being cut, I believe can have a significant affect on the resultant light performance when turned to save weight.

I have also observed light performance differences relevant to TRANSPARENCY of the stone. I am surprised that this is almost never mentioned in the grading of light performance/cut grading. This is a characteristic that charts or scans can''t discern. It can only be observed and ''rated'' with highly experienced and trained human eyes. Currently there is no standard of transparency that the gemological community can rely on by using master stone examples. It''s just a judgment call made by those who take this into consideration when visually examining the stone. One also needs to question as what is acceptable and what isn''t.

I''m not even sure if cutters can ''control'' the affect. But I have certainly seen a difference in various diamonds, where some have incredibly clear transparency and other don''t quite display this. Unfortunately, no chart, set of proportions, or ray tracing can analyze this characteristic. I think that whatever happens, happens and no one really knows the extent of the affect, until the facteting and polishing is completed. I do suspect, it is not taken into consideration, by the majority of graders, cutters and labs.

We''d all like to have a simplistic way to get to the ''edge'' of what constitutes the best or the next best grading for cut, but using just a chart to determine this, is a bit lacking in its scope of accuracy.

Rockdoc

I agree and disagree Roc

Firstly a stone must have graining or clouds to have a drop in transperancy, and we can usually pick this up just with a loupe - but it is not an issue as to the orientation of the (cubic) crystal if the stone does not have these problems.

I have agreed with you before however that there are indeed many stones (maybe 5%) with some degree of transperancy issue.

And no one seems to address it in terms of a grading system (other than 1 Indian firm who operate the best grading lab I have ever come across for the sale of their own goods - but hey Storm, you could never trust a vendor could you?). They list luster on a scale of Ex >>>>, and they only ever give VG as their top grade (maybe it is like ABC color?

).

So if anyone want to develop their own transperency grading methodology they would be doing us all a great favor.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/22/2007 8:36:49 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

And no one seems to address it in terms of a grading system (other than 1 Indian firm who operate the best grading lab I have ever come across for the sale of their own goods - but hey Storm, you could never trust a vendor could you?).

Nope dont trust self-certing, when billions of dollors are at stake even 3rd parties have proven they cant be 100% trusted so nope wouldnt want to go there.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/22/2007 8:30:26 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 2/22/2007 8:27:47 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Storm Roc is correct - it is nice to be able to simplify things, and the AGS ASET charts do that - but they are purely face up. Which is why I direct people to look at fancies thru an A
SET while rocking the stone.

I saw this stone yeasterday - It is amazingly stunning in person (with 2 eyes) yet you would have trashed it I am sure based on its ASET view, and AGS would probably never have looked at these proportion sets for their system.

oops

depends on how far away one was viewing it and what lighting.
Bet I could find a common viewing postion it sucked in where one with a better ASET image would rock.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/22/2007 8:13:27 PM
Author: michaelgem

Date: 2/22/2007 6:34:56 PM
Author: strmrdr
Personally I think a new chart wouldn''t help, someone could still take the ASET/Dispersion maps cut a combo that does well on all 3 and get a 0 for stone not on the charts and start this conversation all over again.

Strmrdr,

Everyone doing work in this area including myself has at many occasions expressed opinions about the range of Ideal. I first put my opinions out there in the Journal of Gemmology seven years ago and numerous times since. I pointed out in a recent article in NY Diamond that most are in close agreement as to the center of that range even though the extent of Ideal is controversial. As you say, some require ''tighter” diamonds, while others are more lenient, either because they don’t see enough difference in diamond beauty, or they allow that to a degree different observers have differing tastes.

I simply want to know the new AGS opinion, which they have said has evolved to be somewhat less tight than when they generated the current cut grading guidelines.

Like it or hate it (the PriceScope consensus) the GIA charts reflect their opinion of Excellent under the listed constraints of half length, star length, symmetry, spread, polish etc.

All I am asking is for AGS charts that reflect AGS''s opinion of Ideal in a similar fashion. We know the caveats and limitations in the use of these updated cut grading estimation charts. There are similar caveats and limitations in the use of the current charts. So I see no harm in updating them to reflect the AGS’s current Ideal 0 range.

It is understood that this would only be in regard to a mathematically symmetrical diamond with the specifications listed in the charts.

Michael Cowing

Im aware of your work and

Your work on contrast brilliance is brilliant!

But in this case we are communicating without understanding.
My opinion is that the AGS system can never be simplified down to charts and chart based systems don''t work because it is a too complicated a subject with too many variables for charts.
Sure they can update the charts but there is no way a chart can reflect every combo that will get a 0 grade.
I will even go as far as agreeing it would be good to have updated charts but still cant say they would tell us much.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

On both counts you question my competence.

I buy diamonds based on that companies grades, and have seen thousands of diamonds at their offices and bought unseen also. They even split grades G-, G G+, SI1- SI SI+. They give placement, type and black or not for clarity , and are working to give totally radical clarity info to their clients. Why would I not trust them? If other companies would do that (some do) as is the prsactice inmany other industries - then this industry would be a lot more efficient.

Date: 2/22/2007 8:54:10 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/22/2007 8:30:26 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 2/22/2007 8:27:47 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Storm Roc is correct - it is nice to be able to simplify things, and the AGS ASET charts do that - but they are purely face up. Which is why I direct people to look at fancies thru an A
SET while rocking the stone.

I saw this stone yeasterday - It is amazingly stunning in person (with 2 eyes) yet you would have trashed it I am sure based on its ASET view, and AGS would probably never have looked at these proportion sets for their system.

oops

depends on how far away one was viewing it and what lighting.
Bet I could find a common viewing postion it sucked in where one with a better ASET image would rock.

Again you question my competence. I look at diamonds, and their ASET images Storm. Lots of diamonds. I looked at this near the window, under office lighting, under the desk, in the hall with halogens. You would say Do not buy it, and you would do a shopper a gross disservice.

So stop bighting Roc''s head off and listen and learn. Debate by all means. But play the topic and not the man. I say that here because I know this is a consumer totally free thread.

 

[strmrdr]

Garry kewl you can trust em but I want an GIA or AGS cert to go with it.
No way should consumers trust in house grading on anything but melee.
There are cases where it would be just fine but given the industry as a whole no way in hades is it good advise.

Second on the stone you put it out there with my name on the post saying id reject it then im questioning you when I say yea I would and say why?
hmmmm

As far as RD goes he got it cuz this thread is not about me or any rating I choose to apply yet he decided to demand that I answer his questions, no thanks not going to play that game. And RD sorry i got a little snarky with you but I'm tired of holier than thou industry types that resent consumers who have opinions and I wont put up with it and that's how you came across.

 

[RockDoc]

Storm wrote:

As far as RD goes he got it cuz this thread is not about me or any rating I choose to apply yet he decided to demand that I answer his questions, no thanks not going to play that game. And RD sorry i got a little snarky with you but I''m tired of holier than thou industry types that resent consumers who have opinions and I wont put up with it.
____________________________________


RE; Rockdoc GOT IT?????????

What did I get, Storm?

Since you author opinion, all I asked was the basis of how you arrive at your conclusions. All I read was offensive excuses to an academically asked question. I would certainly answer the same questions of any one that asked.

The only reason I would skirt the issue and avoid answering, is if I knew I would be embarrassed by the answers or exposed as to not doing all that is necessary.

As far as being holy-er than anyone else, most of the experts have been very cooperative with you, when at times they did not have to be. I don''t think ANY of the experts here regard themselves as being holy-er than you, but will humbly submit that we do have a bit more gemological education, experience and real life observation background than you might. Perhaps Im wrong, and some of the sellers have sent you stones to see. Have you actually seen any eightstars of ACA or ISEE2''s or other brands IN PERSON? I don''t that is a holy-er than thou type question. If you took it that way, it wasn''t meant that way. Have you seen any Royal Asschers in person?

So.....would appreciate the answers to what I asked, so I and others can know the depth relevant to the basis of your conclusions. Perhaps you might get an objective response that would help, and inform you which would benefit those who have come to trust your comments.

Again, this is intended to be discussed in an academic way. Both experts and others can learn and benefit from these discussions. It would be "nice" if this were mutual rather than confrontational.

Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/22/2007 9:24:36 PM
Author: strmrdr
Garry kewl you can trust em but I want an GIA or AGS cert to go with it.
No way should consumers trust in house grading on anything but melee. So if a piece has 5ct of melle you are happy?? You would then be in a real pickle.
There are cases where it would be just fine but given the industry as a whole no way in hades is it good advise.

Second on the stone you put it out there with my name on the post saying id reject it then im questioning you when I say yea I would and say why?
hmmmm

As far as RD goes he got it cuz this thread is not about me or any rating I choose to apply yet he decided to demand that I answer his questions, no thanks not going to play that game. And RD sorry i got a little snarky with you but I''m tired of holier than thou industry types that resent consumers who have opinions and I wont put up with it and that''s how you came across. Good, a simple explantion would hev been adequate - we can come across badly with written words - but good debate is good for all - we can play rough on the topics - technology - and our opinions and behaviour - but not on the man. Not unless the man is always bad (and that is not you Storm).

 

[strmrdr]

ok RD.. Here we go again with quote unqote "expert" accusing me of not seeing any diamonds...

RA - yes
Asscher - Yes <-- thats an Asscher Asscher, that was like seeing the first edition of the King James Bible would be :}
8* - yes - even spent a day with one.
hof - yes
isee2 - yes
gog classic - on wifey2b's finger.
Daniel K. asscher - yes
ACA - not yet
Bunch of other diamonds some h&a some not some branded some not - yep.
Bunch of asschers - yep

Happy?

As far as my asscher grading its simple...
Great looking symmetrical patterns in a square as possible asscher with a over 10% crown makes people who own them very happy :}
300+ and counting.

Now lets discuss someone who claims to independent improperly inserting a branded stone into a comparison improperly operating as a sales person for them shall we?
Now if you wanted to keep a wide assortment of stones available and not identify them that isn't a problem.
Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot isnt it?

 

[strmrdr]

Also want to send out a thanks to the experts around here who help and have helped me learn about diamonds.
I got to admit iv learned more arguing with Garry than pretty much anyone else :}
Even when we disagree I often learn something.

 

[strmrdr]

Garry I will take that 5cts of melee in 2 pointer single cuts please :}
Saw some the other day in a nice piece at a resale shop and at that size they blow h&a melee away.
You were right about that.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 2/22/2007 10:39:13 PM
Author: strmrdr
ok RD.. Here we go again with quote unqote ''expert'' accusing me of not seeing any diamonds...

RA - yes
Asscher - Yes <-- thats an Asscher Asscher, that was like seeing the first edition of the King James bible would be :}
8* - yes - even spent a day with one.
hof - yes
isee2 - yes
gog classic - on wifey2b''s finger.
Daniel K. asscher - yes
ACA - not yet
Bunch of other diamonds some h&a some not some branded some not - yep.
Bunch of asschers - yep

Happy?

As far as my asscher grading its simple...
Great looking symmetrical patterns in a square as possible asscher with a over 10% crown makes people who own them very happy :}
300+ and counting.

Now lets discuss someone who claims to independent improperly inserting a branded stone into a comparison improperly operating as a sales person for them shall we?
Now if you wanted to keep a wide assortment of stones available and not identify them that isn''t a problem.
Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot isnt it?

I never accused you of not seeing any diamonds... There you''ve put words in my mouth that I did not say.

I asked which brands you saw and how many. You mentioned brands but not the quantity. Yes, is not a quantiy.
( In the case of the 8 * star stone, you say you spent a day with one)


I asked how you reached your conclusions of tight symmetry? No real answer, there except how you consider the crown height and looking at symmetrical patterns.

Am I happy?? At least you attempted to make a polite response. But then you accuse me of hyping up 8*stars, which I do not do. If I did, a multitude of consumers would have complained about it on the forum. I do hold eightstars in high esteem relevant to what they do to get the results they do, but they are not for everyone. I show people lots of comparable stones, to illustrate different characteristics when someone is here. What you don''t realize is that I do not say what the stone is relating to a brand until after they''ve seen it. Further, if I do show a stone such as the 8* it is done for informative comparison reason, not to sell it. I do not belittle a stone they are considering unless the stone is that poor that it is deserving of that opinion. Frankly, I only see a few of stones that poor. Generally those are round stones that have extremley shallow tables, extreme depths, or ones noticeable cut lopsided, but not limited to those.

For them moment let consider color. If a customer is has selected an F and is curious about what a D looks like, do you think it is improper to show the client a D? Why is it any different for clarity or cut ?

What I do care about the stress is 1) that the stone be represented accurately 2) that the stone is really the stone the client wants. 3) That they feel that the price they are paying for it is within normal selling range prices, in the market for which they are purchasing it. 4) and to answer honestly, and accurately any questions they have.

This is what the clients I get want to know.

Now back to Happy vs. Unhappy. I AM unhappy that without every being here in person to know exactly what I do that you would challenge my ethical conduct. For readers that trust your opinion, this is improper, unfair, and without merit or basis and casts an improperly indicates conduct which is not factual. Someone with a little imagination would potentially interpret it in a way that is incorrect.

I have worked extremely hard to develop the reputation I have. I think any other acknowledged professional here would take the same position that I do with this, if you accused them without factual basis of this as well.

I''ve tried to be courteous, cordial, academic and without any criticism of you. I merely asked factual questions, that if you asked the same ones from me, you''d get a complete and thorough answer to.

Unfortunately, my attempting to be academic and professional is one sided.

Rockdoc

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 2/22/2007 10:39:13 PM
Author: strmrdr


Now lets discuss someone who claims to independent improperly inserting a branded stone into a comparison improperly operating as a sales person for them shall we?
Now if you wanted to keep a wide assortment of stones available and not identify them that isn't a problem.
Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot isnt it?

Storm, when an expert is asked his opinion by a client, he renders it objectively, and depending on the assignment, tries to educate the client, as requested, using all the tools and/or examples available.

When asked what he means by optical symmetry, for example, and he can provide an example of same that is NOT FOR SALE, there is nothing wrong with that, when the client request an explanaton, and most do. Appraisers offer client education that too often retailers can't or won't.

Just like I can provide "masters" for color, and can show the effects of fluorescence and lighting to my clients, those who have classic examples of cutting to illustrate the answers to questions posed by clients are free, and in fact obligated to provide that information, and let the chips fall where they may.

I once had a classic marquise example of what we call a POS, but an appraiser friend of mine wanted it for his collection.

I can use my color masters, over 20 of them, to illustrate cutting as well as color. I've used them for FIRE examples, and have even shown them to clients to make an education point.

Storm.. YOU ARE WAY OFF BASE with your accusations of improper behaviour of ROCKDOC.













PS: Some retailers try to provide the same comparison.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/22/2007 11:38:38 PM
Author: adamasgem

Just like I can provide 'masters' for color, and can show the effects of fluorescence and lighting to my clients, those who have classic examples of cutting to illustrate the answers to questions posed by clients are free, and in fact obligated to provide that information, and let the chips fall where they may.

Big difference the color masters are not a branded stone and they are certified by an outside authority in the field.
No one says that 8* is the cut master stone cept for maybe you and RockDoc and you have been paid by them at times and RockDoc has a well documented love affair with them.
Neither of you is impartial when it comes to them.
Like I said if they were not identified as 8* then no issue with it.

I'v know about this issue for a long time and haven't brought it up until tonight.
See my next post.....

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/22/2007 11:15:38 PM
Author: RockDoc

I have worked extremely hard to develop the reputation I have. I think any other acknowledged professional here would take the same position that I do with this, if you accused them without factual basis of this as well.

Rockdoc

It is a fact and a few posts up you admit to throwing 8* into the mix.
Several people who have used your services have told me about it over the years so I knew it was factual.
It wasnt a big enough issue to raise until I wanted an example to give you a taste of how I feel when I get jumped on by the experts and others here over issues and being questioned about if im independant and implying without proof im working for someone which has been proven not to be true on several occasions.

I can say that I hate vendorXYZ for what ever factual reason I choose.
Beleive me there are several to chose from with a few vendors but overall they do a good job so they arent used and Id rather just omit recomending them than attack them.
With a few others there have been some rough spots but in general its kewl so no need to omit recomending them or bring it up at all.

You chose to make this thread about me, I didnt pick on you out of the blue.
Now go back and read your post in this thread about me, then read my comment about you showing 8* then think about how you feel and you will know how I felt and I didnt do anything wrong to deserve it you just disagreed with what I said....

 

[michaelgem]

Im aware of your work and your work on contrast brilliance is brilliant!
But in this case we are communicating without understanding. Strmrdr

We really do understand each other. It may not seem that way because each of us is busy articulating our opinions. Michael

My opinion is that the AGS system can never be simplified down to charts and chart based systems don't work because it is a too complicated a subject with too many variables for charts. Strmrdr

This is a point of view that is likely shared by the majority reading this thread. It is somewhat analogous to saying that you can’t completely quantify diamond beauty. This is true. But the labs create software that massages the data output by a Sarin type device, that models the diamond and utilizes measures such as brightness, contrast, fire and scintillation to arrive at a cut grade.

The cut grading guideline charts were the AGS’s initial software determination of cut grades for the specific case of Paul Slegers quality cutting and the constraints and proportions listed on each graph.

Peter is very forthcoming in supplying the updated grade for any specific combination of parameters such as the 56/41/35/50/80/ symmetric case that I asked him for. The argument for updating the charts is for completeness and so that the AGS position may be correctly represented. It is to remove confusion like the 41/35 Ideal 0 combination that is currently labeled a 2. Michael

Sure they can update the charts but there is no way a chart can reflect every combo that will get a 0 grade. Strmrdr

I agree. We can only get a good sense of the range of Ideal 0 for the specific combinations used to create the charts, and these are idealized stones with perfect polish symmetry, clarity etc. Michael

I will even go as far as agreeing it would be good to have updated charts but still cant say they would tell us much. Strmrdr

Iincluding Sergey, that now makes three of us.

Michael Cowing