AGS introduces cut grading on DQR reports

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Dear all,
I just recieved this announcement (some has been edited out):

Hi Garry:

This past Tuesday evening AGS Laboratories rolled out an updated Diamond Quality Report with a proportion based grading system for the standard round brilliant cut. This system and report are being positioned as a “Gold” report. The complete system is attached to this email in a compressed .zip file.

The current light performance system remains as is and early next year will be repackaged and positioned as a “Platinum” report.

This updated proportion based system is the easiest to use proportion system yet developed and we hope it will find wide acceptance in our industry. It provides the manufacturing industry 100% predictability in their manufacturing process. It also is easy to understand and teach.

Heartily,
Peter Yantzer, Executive Director
American Gem Society Laboratories

The system incorporates some enhancements:

Polish and Symmetry
The Ideal Cut Grade can have Ideal or Excellent polish and symmetry
An Excellent Cut Grade can have Ideal or Excellent or Very Good polish and symmetry
Essentially, polish and symmetry grades can be one grade lower than the assigned cut grade

Table Diameter Sizes
52 to 65%

Girdle Thickness
The Ideal Cut Grade can have girdle thicknesses of Thin, Medium or Slightly Thick at the ‘valleys’ or ‘scallops’.
Highest grade achievable with up to a 4.5% girdle, at any point, is Ideal
Highest grade achievable with >4.5 to 5.5% girdle, at any point, is Excellent
Highest grade achievable with >5.5 to 6.5% girdle, at any point, is Very Good
Highest grade achievable with >6.5 to 7.5% girdle, at any point, is Good
Highest grade achievable with >7.5 to 10.0% girdle, at any point, is Fair
Highest grade achievable with >10.0% girdle, at any point, is Poor
Extremely thin or very thin girdle, at any point, reduces the cut grade by one grade

Weight Ratio
This is factored into the Proportion Charts

Star Length
All inclusive from 45 to 55%

Lower Girdle Length
All inclusive from 75 to 85%

Painting and Digging
Maximum digging of the upper half facets is 3 degrees of azimuth
Maximum painting of the upper half facets is 4 degrees of azimuth
Maximum digging of the lower half facets is 3 degrees of azimuth
Maximum painting of the lower half facets is 3 degrees of azimuth

Rounding
Table diameter percentage is rounded to the nearest 1%. 55.4% = 55%. 55.5% = 56%.
Pavilion angle is rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree. 40.74° = 40.7°. 40.75° = 40.8°
Crown angle is rounded to the nearest half degree. 34.24° = 34°. 34.25° = 34.5°
Note: All angles and percentages on AGSL documents are reported to the accuracy of the Sarin DiaMension measuring device, but the above rounding is used for calculating the proportion cut grade.

Culet Size
Highest grade achievable with none, very small, small or medium is Ideal
Highest grade achievable with slightly large is Very Good
Highest grade achievable with large is Good
Highest grade achievable with very large or extremely large is Fair

Any standard round brilliant cut outside of any of the above parameters must be cut-graded using the patented AGS Performance Grading Software
Copyright 2008 American Gem Society Laboratories

There is much to think about

 

[strmrdr]

my first thoughts are bleck
The ags report levels are already confusing enough without 2 cut grade systems.

 

[Regular Guy]

Could be my simple minded way of thinking is way off base...or I may have nailed it. See my 5 points below:

1) Consider AGS's new ad campaign (to wholesalers/sellers, cutters who would consider using their services over GIA's):

Always (whether Gold or Platinum) better than GIA. Sometimes (Platinum) considerably better.

It all may flow from their motivation and good purposed ability to clarify and promote their services with this header.

2) They read and agreed with my post in this thread, where I responded to Wink.

3) In sum...they may have perceived that they were both providing premium services, and at the same time, not being perceived in the market properly for the services they were providing, with respect to their actual value. So, they decided they might do the following:

a) downgrade existing services to go toe to toe with what GIA offers, so that those interested in comparing (proportion to proportion) see that...to all intents and purposes...these two offer an equal level of services...but...with AGS's 10 grades, and their experimental vs clinical approach, mapping their grades onto what they can represent is a more rigorously defined top (and below) set of grades...the AGS reputation as...quality, and better...continues, feature for feature...with gold.

b) plus...offer the additional feature of even tighter mapping for those concerned that proportion based measuring is not confirming enough, and so, with the provision of Platinum...which they solely provide now...they provide insurance for those who always were so anal as to want the best...but who now can get the explanation of how this is better yet than what was already better than GIA...and by the way...since they're getting something better than a directly competing product...they should expect to pay for same.

4) So, maybe in this move, they are first unbundling...going toe to toe with GIA, and improving the extent to which their services had not been accurately perceived with respect to their main competition...and then re-bundling...so that what are just now all rolled up into what has been perceived as a superior product...continued to be perceived as such...but with the cost demanded for what is now better perceived for that added value.

5) Separately, but continuous with the idea...in the same way that Proctor & Gamble break out 50 tubes of toothpaste on your shelves at the grocery...not so much yielding lots of difference between them, but in the end...getting a whole lot more net shelf space than anybody else for having done so...this may (or may not) be a minor additional reason for offering an additional product.

Oui?

 

[John P]

Date: 10/9/2008 11:27:20 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Could be my simple minded way of thinking is way off base...or I may have nailed it. See my 5 points below:

From what I understand you did. This has been in the works for some time. It’s not meant to replace the light performance report. It’s an ease-of-use option (Strm, I believe they’re phasing out the old DQR with no grade and phasing this in) like a healthcare service offering two types of blood tests; one more sophisticated than the other.

The DQD with light performance will continue as AGS’ most sophisticated metric, but people in some sectors consider it too complex: Retailers want an option that's easier for their employees and customers to understand. Suppliers want a system they can incorporate into Sarin scanners to assign a proportions grade (as they used to have for AGS and as GIA provides now). Manufacturers want definitive charts in order to have 100% predictability in the cutting process.

Proportions are understood and accepted, witness GIA, so this format was developed on request. That plea was not limited to laymen; notable pros have demanded concrete grading charts rather than cut guides (days-long examples here). I trust those people will welcome this option.

What’s interesting to me is that AGS listened and addressed the “too strict” perception often voiced about polish & symmetry, allowing EX/Ideal into their top grade in this format. That should also be welcomed by those who complained in the past.

Basically Ira nails it. The DQR is being turned into a proportions-based option which competes with GIA for ease-of-use while (they anticipate) retaining AGS’ identity.

Here’s what I had in my notes:

- Ease-of-use: 1 page of instructions, 14 lookup charts.
- Grading is based on what earns 0 in their light performance metric (so no steep/deeps).
- Grading on the charts is based 50% on face-up position and 50% on average of 35 degrees of tilt.
- The charts are sorted by table size with c/p angles, giving star/lower half ranges.
- The top grade will be ideal, second excellent etc.
- Ideal grade will allow EX/Ideal polish & symmetry. Excellent grade will allow VG/EX, etc.


While we wish AGS well it makes no difference to us. Our company will stay with the 3D light performance DQD as we feel it’s the most advanced and thorough metric in the trade. The lab remains confident it will continue gaining acceptance over time but in the interim they wish to tailor solutions for everyone.

 

[strmrdr]

My problem is and its 330am and just got back from the ER with my sis-in-law so this might not make sense...
Here is the problem...Conversation between pro-sumer and newbie
Before:
I bought an ideal cut RB diamond..
AGS Ideal?
Yes
Kewl

now.
I bought an ideal cut RB diamond
AGS ideal?
Yes
Which AGS ideal?
AGS ideal
Which AGS ideal
your confusing me!!!!

This is not good if they want to offer this the top grade should not be ideal.

After thinking about this in the ER waiting to get her test results for almost 6 hours this is what I kept coming back to no matter how I looked at it.

 

[diagem]

After reading all of the above (including the opinions) it smells like some kind of compromise???

 

[Serg]

Date: 10/10/2008 9:08:02 AM
Author: DiaGem
After reading all of the above (including the opinions) it smells like some kind of compromise???

Do you mean compromise between GIA and AGS cut grading systems?
Looks what NEW AGS Ideal is inside GIA Ex( except P40.4-40.3)

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 10/10/2008 10:58:12 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 10/10/2008 9:08:02 AM
Author: DiaGem
After reading all of the above (including the opinions) it smells like some kind of compromise???

Do you mean compromise between GIA and AGS cut grading systems?
Looks what NEW AGS Ideal is inside GIA Ex( except P40.4-40.3)

Of course, I was shooting from the hip, and assuming a lot.

Serg, do you have information not in evidence...

To include a differentiated set of fundamentals for stratification by grade in the NEW system?

 

[Serg]

Date: 10/10/2008 12:30:26 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 10/10/2008 10:58:12 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 10/10/2008 9:08:02 AM
Author: DiaGem
After reading all of the above (including the opinions) it smells like some kind of compromise???

Do you mean compromise between GIA and AGS cut grading systems?
Looks what NEW AGS Ideal is inside GIA Ex( except P40.4-40.3)

Of course, I was shooting from the hip, and assuming a lot.

Serg, do you have information not in evidence...

To include a differentiated set of fundamentals for stratification by grade in the NEW system?

Ira, we have full information.
I need receive permission for publication firstly

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/10/2008 10:58:12 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 10/10/2008 9:08:02 AM
Author: DiaGem
After reading all of the above (including the opinions) it smells like some kind of compromise???

Do you mean compromise between GIA and AGS cut grading systems?
Looks what NEW AGS Ideal is inside GIA Ex( except P40.4-40.3)

Yep..., I am NOT a pro at this..., but looking from this height (looking over

), it seems like some sort of AGS compromise??

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/10/2008 5:51:53 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/10/2008 10:58:12 AM

Author: Serg

Date: 10/10/2008 9:08:02 AM

Author: DiaGem

After reading all of the above (including the opinions) it smells like some kind of compromise???

Do you mean compromise between GIA and AGS cut grading systems?

Looks what NEW AGS Ideal is inside GIA Ex( except P40.4-40.3)

Yep..., I am NOT a pro at this..., but looking from this height (looking over

), it seems like some sort of AGS compromise??

I would call it a sell out to marketing.
AGS has lost a lot of respect I had for them.
Read this:
http://www.pricescope.com/Article/AGSL/twodimensionalgrading.pdf

"Diamond cutters like to work from charts. We have provided the cutting industry with
Guideline Charts with specific ‘brilliandeering’ parameters. These types of charts are very
helpful to the cutting trade. But, when presented to the consuming public they can be used to
purposefully misrepresent and deceive."

Then look at the latest actions.

Plus:

Massive confusion is going to rein with 2 AGS ideal cut grades with different parameters.

I am very strongly disappointed.

 

[Serg]

Date: 10/10/2008 8:01:52 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 10/10/2008 5:51:53 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/10/2008 10:58:12 AM

Author: Serg

Date: 10/10/2008 9:08:02 AM

Author: DiaGem

After reading all of the above (including the opinions) it smells like some kind of compromise???

Do you mean compromise between GIA and AGS cut grading systems?

Looks what NEW AGS Ideal is inside GIA Ex( except P40.4-40.3)

Yep..., I am NOT a pro at this..., but looking from this height (looking over

), it seems like some sort of AGS compromise??

I would call it a sell out to marketing.
AGS has lost a lot of respect I had for them.
Read this:
http://www.pricescope.com/Article/AGSL/twodimensionalgrading.pdf

'Diamond cutters like to work from charts. We have provided the cutting industry with
Guideline Charts with specific ‘brilliandeering’ parameters. These types of charts are very
helpful to the cutting trade. But, when presented to the consuming public they can be used to
purposefully misrepresent and deceive.'

Then look at the latest actions.

Plus:

Massive confusion is going to rein with 2 AGS ideal cut grades with different parameters.

I am very strongly disappointed.

re:Massive confusion is going to rein with 2 AGS ideal cut grades with different parameters.

Yes, It is main problem.
We again have not any technical explanation why ASG again changed cut grading system , why AGS changed cutters guidelines
Where is any “science based ” explanation ?
It become more and more confusing for me
see old long discussion


https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-2-or-ags-0-the-candidate-vs-parametric-grades.58088/page-7

 

[Serg]

Date: 10/10/2008 5:51:53 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/10/2008 10:58:12 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 10/10/2008 9:08:02 AM
Author: DiaGem
After reading all of the above (including the opinions) it smells like some kind of compromise???

Do you mean compromise between GIA and AGS cut grading systems?
Looks what NEW AGS Ideal is inside GIA Ex( except P40.4-40.3)

Yep..., I am NOT a pro at this..., but looking from this height (looking over

), it seems like some sort of AGS compromise??

Diagem,

Compromise? What compormise? Between what do you see compromise?

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/11/2008 1:40:20 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 10/10/2008 5:51:53 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/10/2008 10:58:12 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 10/10/2008 9:08:02 AM
Author: DiaGem
After reading all of the above (including the opinions) it smells like some kind of compromise???

Do you mean compromise between GIA and AGS cut grading systems?
Looks what NEW AGS Ideal is inside GIA Ex( except P40.4-40.3)

Yep..., I am NOT a pro at this..., but looking from this height (looking over

), it seems like some sort of AGS compromise??

Diagem,

Compromise? What compormise? Between what do you see compromise?

Am I wrong by thinking that a larger range could ultimately become "Ideal"??

 

[Rhino]

Thanks for this Garry.

45-55% stars? Why stop at 55%? There are absolutely spectacular diamonds (AGS *Platinum Ideal*) with stars upwards of 65%! To limit it to 55% is silly.

Tables up to 65%?

And crown/pavilion digging up to 3 degrees???

It appears they're tightening the reigns in painting but loosening them in digging. According to these parameters it is possible that there will be "platinum" ideals that would not make "gold ideals".

Who is coming up with these parameters?!?!?

What are the crown/pavilion angle tolerances?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 10/11/2008 8:15:03 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/11/2008 1:40:20 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 10/10/2008 5:51:53 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/10/2008 10:58:12 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 10/10/2008 9:08:02 AM
Author: DiaGem
After reading all of the above (including the opinions) it smells like some kind of compromise???

Do you mean compromise between GIA and AGS cut grading systems?
Looks what NEW AGS Ideal is inside GIA Ex( except P40.4-40.3)

Yep..., I am NOT a pro at this..., but looking from this height (looking over

), it seems like some sort of AGS compromise??

Diagem,

Compromise? What compormise? Between what do you see compromise?

Am I wrong by thinking that a larger range could ultimately become ''Ideal''??

Diagem there is one practical effect from this new standard -

The Ideal Cut Grade can have Ideal or Excellent polish and symmetry

This is a big change and will lead to many more stones being able to be called AGS 0.
GIA grades about 35 times more diamonds than AGS, and that is one reason. Of course you would know this can be an even bigger issue with fancy shapes, and perhaps we will see AGS come out with parametric grading for fancy shapes?

My early comments on the strategy of AGSL are that they seem to be doing this not as a compromise, but as a way to grow their business.
Peter has told me they will be uploading everything, including some complex excel sheets on lower and upper girdle cut off''s as well (which I have, but have not spent the time to analyse yet). We may put up the 14 table % charts here - but Andrey will need to do it - they are too large to shrink to under 100kb.

I can tell you though that they extend the range of AGS "EXCELLENT" and that is, where I think, AGSL is heading to strategically compete with GIA. Peter would be very happy to raise his 2% of (3% of GIA''s business) to 4% (6%).

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/11/2008 3:55:31 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 10/11/2008 8:15:03 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/11/2008 1:40:20 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 10/10/2008 5:51:53 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/10/2008 10:58:12 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 10/10/2008 9:08:02 AM
Author: DiaGem
After reading all of the above (including the opinions) it smells like some kind of compromise???

Do you mean compromise between GIA and AGS cut grading systems?
Looks what NEW AGS Ideal is inside GIA Ex( except P40.4-40.3)

Yep..., I am NOT a pro at this..., but looking from this height (looking over

), it seems like some sort of AGS compromise??

Diagem,

Compromise? What compormise? Between what do you see compromise?

Am I wrong by thinking that a larger range could ultimately become 'Ideal'??

Diagem there is one practical effect from this new standard -

The Ideal Cut Grade can have Ideal or Excellent polish and symmetry

Thats whats I mean..., am I not getting something??? AGS wants to be known as being one of the strictest labs for cut grades..., letting Ex polish into its TOP cut grade is called what? I personally dont think there should be a difference..., but AGS was thinking differently and educated US to think as different!

This is a big change and will lead to many more stones being able to be called AGS 0. Exactly what I mean...., am I missing something?
GIA grades about 35 times more diamonds than AGS, and that is one reason. Of course you would know this can be an even bigger issue with fancy shapes, and perhaps we will see AGS come out with parametric grading for fancy shapes?

My early comments on the strategy of AGSL are that they seem to be doing this not as a compromise, but as a way to grow their business. Interesting growing strategy....
Peter has told me they will be uploading everything, including some complex excel sheets on lower and upper girdle cut off's as well (which I have, but have not spent the time to analyse yet). We may put up the 14 table % charts here - but Andrey will need to do it - they are too large to shrink to under 100kb.

I can tell you though that they extend the range of AGS 'EXCELLENT' and that is, where I think, AGSL is heading to strategically compete with GIA. Peter would be very happy to raise his 2% of (3% of GIA's business) to 4% (6%).

Hey Garry..., you know I personally think EX is suffice to be called Ideal..., but we where taught to think that Ideal should be better than just excellent..., and now AGS is saying excellent is good enough to be Ideal?

I guess I am a bit confused....

 

[Regular Guy]

I''ll continue being a busy body here, as the technical detail is only beginning to come forward...

Although, on the face of it, I had agreed and was even sympathetic to what Garry came to describe in principle:

"My early comments on the strategy of AGSL are that they seem to be doing this not as a compromise, but as a way to grow their business."

And to Karl, I was prepared to share that I could tell the difference, as I imputed it...between gold and standard levels of performance...without the need for too much detail...

As this has begun to come forward, I have two sets of feelings:

1) As Serg is suggesting, and as Rhino (and Serg) are giving us a picture of the logical problems implied:

Date: 10/11/2008 3:53:32 PM
Author: Rhino

45-55% stars? Why stop at 55%? There are absolutely spectacular diamonds (AGS *Platinum Ideal*) with stars upwards of 65%! To limit it to 55% is silly.

Tables up to 65%?

And crown/pavilion digging up to 3 degrees???

It appears they''re tightening the reigns in painting but loosening them in digging. According to these parameters it is possible that there will be ''platinum'' ideals that would not make ''gold ideals''.

Who is coming up with these parameters?!?!?

I do think it will be a problem if these two systems for grading cut...gold & platinum...do not articulate ideally with each other.

Though I had presumed they would actually be identical...with perhaps only measurement (and therefore verification) differences between these two...if there really will even be a different criteria for each, and on top of this...with logical non-sequiturs between the two, as Storm has more than implied...this will be problematic...both for the marketing AGS will do, and not to mention, for the implications these systems will have for the science it purports to understand.

2) As Garry has answered here...I think I am smart now when I throw in the towel, remember again to spend much less time here since I have not really made enough of my own observations to understand what I think ideal is anyway, since efforts to understand these things with the best of intentions, executed with probably even reasonable standards, can come to altogether reasonable conclusions that will vary with data exactly as we have them, so really who am I to weigh in anyway.

 

[strmrdr]

The more I come back to this the more I am convinced that having 2 different AGS Ideals with 2 different requirements is insanity.
It is recipe for massive confusion and erosion of consumer confidence in the AGS brand and opens the door for deceptive practice by vendors that do not explain the difference.
Will enough vendors even understand the difference enough to be able to explain it?
Some have enough trouble with explaining why AGS Ideal might be better than GIA EX and often get the details wrong.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/10/2008 3:55:28 AM
Author: John Pollard
While we wish AGS well it makes no difference to us. Our company will stay with the 3D light performance DQD as we feel it’s the most advanced and thorough metric in the trade. The lab remains confident it will continue gaining acceptance over time but in the interim they wish to tailor solutions for everyone.

It is handing your competition a gift.
If I was Paul I would be very angry over it.
He now has more competition that does not have to work as hard to cut diamonds that are called AGS Ideal.
This has doubled your workload, your job to educate the dealer network went from teaching the difference between GIA EX and AGS Ideal to training them to explain the difference between AGS Ideal and AGS Ideal2 and GIA EX.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 10/11/2008 11:28:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

It is handing your competition a gift.
If I was Paul I would be very angry over it.
He now has more competition that does not have to work as hard to cut diamonds that are called AGS Ideal.
This has doubled your workload, your job to educate the dealer network went from teaching the difference between GIA EX and AGS Ideal to training them to explain the difference between AGS Ideal and AGS Ideal2 and GIA EX.

Good points Strm , and others on here.
As a consumer, not impressed frankly - why fix something that wasn''t broke, so to say?

 

[denverappraiser]

I think this is pretty clearly about marketing, not gemology, although nothing has been mentioned so far about this to the AGS members or appraisers. Most aren’t using the current (former?) AGS cut grading system anyway because it’s so darned difficult to apply in the field and are relying strictly on the opinion of the lab to evaluate a stone. Not surprisingly, the lab likes this approach.

This all represents a continued divergence of interests between AGS and AGSL. AGS’s interests lie with the membership while AGSL’s interests lie with the cutters and dealers who buys AGSL services. There is less and less overlap between these two groups as lab services have become more and more simply another part of the manufacturing process. AGSL is struggling for market share. This is an evolution we’ve seen before. Anyone else remember when GIA was a college for gemology and their business was to teach useful skills to jewelers instead of being a lab in the drivers seat of the diamond manufacturing business?

This reminds me of the evolution of the US tax code where now are required to calculate our income taxes using 2 completely different systems, the 'regular' system and the 'alternative minimum tax'. The original idea was to simplify things and to eliminate loopholes but the end result was simply a doubling of the paperwork, some serious confusion for taxpayers and an increase in taxes for people with complicated returns. Good news for the taxman and good news for the accountants, but not so much for the taxpayer. It sounds to me like AGSL is creating an 'alternative minimum grade' here and those of us who hope to understand it will again need to go back to school.

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

 

[strmrdr]

If they haven''t implemented it yet maybe they will change direction and not move forward with it if enough people come out against it.
I am inclined to recommend that everyone reject the new M-Ideal (Marketing Ideal) grade entirely and put it in the same class as Store-Ideals and give it 0 weight when making a purchase decision.

 

[Serg]

Date: 10/12/2008 1:57:24 PM
Author: strmrdr
If they haven''t implemented it yet maybe they will change direction and not move forward with it if enough people come out against it.
I am inclined to recommend that everyone reject the new M-Ideal (Marketing Ideal) grade entirely and put it in the same class as Store-Ideals and give it 0 weight when making a purchase decision.

Karl,
I prefer receive any explanation from ASGL firstly. They have plan to do publication in December.

May be marketing reason is not main reason.

May be PGS has problem with accuracy 3D models. May be PGS has problems.
We do not know real reason yet.
But new system is much more predictable for cutters in any case. It is important.

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/12/2008 2:13:53 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 10/12/2008 1:57:24 PM
Author: strmrdr
If they haven''t implemented it yet maybe they will change direction and not move forward with it if enough people come out against it.
I am inclined to recommend that everyone reject the new M-Ideal (Marketing Ideal) grade entirely and put it in the same class as Store-Ideals and give it 0 weight when making a purchase decision.

Karl,
I prefer receive any explanation from ASGL firstly. They have plan to do publication in December.

May be marketing reason is not main reason.

May be PGS has problem with accuracy 3D models. May be PGS has problems.
We do not know real reason yet.
But new system is much more predictable for cutters in any case. It is important.

Thats good news..., but not as good for consumers willing to spend top $$$ for the ""

perfect

"" cut Diamond

!

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 10/12/2008 2:13:53 PM
Author: Serg
May be PGS has problem with accuracy 3D models. May be PGS has problems.

If the performance grading system (PGS) has some problems that tweaking would help, by all means it’s worth considering. AGS has some very smart folks who are continuously thinking about this and a certain amount of adjustment seems inevitable with any system that's this complex. This, however, seems to be an overlay of a parallel system on top of PGS, not a revision of it. The plan seems to be to keep both and apply them independently under different circumstances. It's not just realigning the path to the same destination, it's creating a second destination.

Date: 10/12/2008 2:13:53 PM
Author: Serg
But new system is much more predictable for cutters in any case. It is important.

That IS the marketing concern. I agree, it’s important.

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

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/13/2008 8:53:42 AM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 10/12/2008 2:13:53 PM

Author: Serg

But new system is much more predictable for cutters in any case. It is important.

That IS the marketing concern. I agree, it’s important.


Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

Professional Appraisals in Denver

Important to cutters yes.
But at a steep price to consumers with massive confusion and in Peter''s own words the potential for massive abuse.
2 AGS Ideal cut standards can not in anyway be considered a positive thing for consumers.

 

[denverappraiser]

Karl,

It’s important to consumers too.

Unpredictability equals risk for the cutters, and risk for cutters equals money for their customers. Accounting for this risk is part of the reason for the price premium associated with AGS goods and it provides a competitive advantage to GIA. Reducing the risk will both help to lower the premium and, hopefully, increase both distribution and demand for AGSL graded stones. Whether this is a worthwhile tradeoff is something I can't really address without understanding what the new system is and how they plan to implement it. I'm with Serg in that I like to hear this sort of thing directly from the source and this thread came as news to me. There's lots of speculation going on here. I've been aware of the issue for some time but not that they had worked out a strategy for addressing it.

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

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 10/13/2008 11:19:19 AM
Author: strmrdr

Important to cutters yes.
But at a steep price to consumers with massive confusion and in Peter''s own words the potential for massive abuse.
2 AGS Ideal cut standards can not in anyway be considered a positive thing for consumers.

Dear Storm,
I have not slowly read all communications from Peter yet, but I can not remember any suggestions of massive abuse either being predicted, and I doubt that they would allow that either. AGS have certainly always been receptive to adjustment to maintain standards.
What Peter has said is they apparently ''borrowed'' the painting and digging rules applied by another large lab. so looking on the bright side - if that meant we closely examin those rules and find them to have shortcomings - then we may also be able to enable some genuine consumer protection thru the mist via back door of the 800Kg gorilla enclosure

So please ask questions - but don''t jump to hastily to negative fear and panic reactions - I think we are getting more than enough of that from Wall Street et al at present

 

[strmrdr]

Hi Garry,

In my post above I quoted it:
https://www.pricescope.com/Article/AGSL/twodimensionalgrading.pdf

"Diamond cutters like to work from charts. We have provided the cutting industry with
Guideline Charts with specific ‘brilliandeering’ parameters. These types of charts are very
helpful to the cutting trade. But, when presented to the consuming public they can be used to
purposefully misrepresent and deceive."

I don't really mind that they are doing another grading system the problem is calling the top grade AGS Ideal on 2 different systems.