AGS introduces cut grading on DQR reports

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/17/2008 8:43:27 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I hear you Marty - but the difference in PGS results from symmetry is far less than anything I expect you could imagine. I have seen many examples of it when buying.


But I do understand where you are coming from - and it is of course a factor.


But let me try to explain again why I think that Sergey makes a point that is not an attack on AGS - it is advice / question from manufacturers.


A stone comes off the wheel - it is run thru PGS, has a AGS0 for light performance - and has pretty good sym and polish.

Manufacturer must decide to send or not send it to AGS -so somoene must spend 1 hour looking thru a microscope to see if it will pass IDEAL sym and poish.

Now they could simply shoot it thru after a good look with a loupe knowing that if it does not get AGS 0 it can get AGS Ideal as a safe fall back.


The trouble is the quick PGS test is not a safe fallback. So AGS will not get the doubling of business it is aiming for and a simplification for their clients at the cutting side.

But if AGS Ideal loses any premium it might have by grade dilution then there is no reason to send it to AGS in the first place.
That will happen!
The doubling of business only works if consumers and the trade are willing to accept the new Ideal as having the same value as 3d Ideal.
Some in the trade might try it but we the consumers will just add it to our list of dirty tricks to watch out for.
So AGS loses twice, they lose consumer confidence and they lose those that count on the premium.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 10/17/2008 10:21:15 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 10/17/2008 8:43:27 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I hear you Marty - but the difference in PGS results from symmetry is far less than anything I expect you could imagine. I have seen many examples of it when buying.


But I do understand where you are coming from - and it is of course a factor.


But let me try to explain again why I think that Sergey makes a point that is not an attack on AGS - it is advice / question from manufacturers.


A stone comes off the wheel - it is run thru PGS, has a AGS0 for light performance - and has pretty good sym and polish.

Manufacturer must decide to send or not send it to AGS -so somoene must spend 1 hour looking thru a microscope to see if it will pass IDEAL sym and poish.

Now they could simply shoot it thru after a good look with a loupe knowing that if it does not get AGS 0 it can get AGS Ideal as a safe fall back.


The trouble is the quick PGS test is not a safe fallback. So AGS will not get the doubling of business it is aiming for and a simplification for their clients at the cutting side.

But if AGS Ideal loses any premium it might have by grade dilution then there is no reason to send it to AGS in the first place.
That will happen!
The doubling of business only works if consumers and the trade are willing to accept the new Ideal as having the same value as 3d Ideal.
Some in the trade might try it but we the consumers will just add it to our list of dirty tricks to watch out for.
So AGS loses twice, they lose consumer confidence and they lose those that count on the premium.

You mistake Pricescope for the WORLD outside Storm.
Firstly - AGS will give an emailed "verbal", so there is no additional "sending" and this will save the manufacturer additional time and shipping costs. And it will be easier for the person responding to make a no brainer decision.

Secondly - you perhaps did not understand the reason for John''s Podcast for AGS? Out there in trinket flogging land IDEAL is the word -it is the term that is abused (aside from Sergey''s view that the term is limiting) - many people say "this is an IDEAL cut diamond - and then they must explain why it says on the GIA paper that it is infact only EXCELLENT.

AGS can solve some problems - and I have heard Peter lament that during presentations to retailers (and even Gemologists) few people cotton on to the light performance idea. Remember us trinket floggers need to know about tic toc''s, treatments for amethyst and all sorts of stuff as well as diamond stuff (Please Sir, can I go home, my brain is full now).

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 10/17/2008 8:43:27 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I hear you Marty - but the difference in PGS results from symmetry is far less than anything I expect you could imagine. I have seen many examples of it when buying.

But I do understand where you are coming from - and it is of course a factor.

But let me try to explain again why I think that Sergey makes a point that is not an attack on AGS - it is advice / question from manufacturers.

A stone comes off the wheel - it is run thru PGS, has a AGS0 for light performance - and has pretty good sym and polish.
Manufacturer must decide to send or not send it to AGS -so somoene must spend 1 hour looking thru a microscope to see if it will pass IDEAL sym and poish.
Now they could simply shoot it thru after a good look with a loupe knowing that if it does not get AGS 0 it can get AGS Ideal as a safe fall back.

The trouble is the quick PGS test is not a safe fallback. So AGS will not get the doubling of business it is aiming for and a simplification for their clients at the cutting side.

You see Garry, neither you nor I (nor Sergey) can do the arithmetic to compute the resultant PBS (parameter based system) metric, and we will see changes in the PGS with inclusion of fire, scintillation, etc. They are evolving systems. Although I don''t particularly like the 2D parameter based system concept, as a regression of sorts to the stone age, I can see where they are coming from, but at least they (AGS) haven''t put in the stooopid taste test to be all things to the seller and the hell with the consumer.

As to Sergey''s example, I think (but don''t really know for sure) if cutters go toward the newer parameter based contours, AND have Ideal polish and symmetry, then they have a better chance of getting the higher light performance grade PGS metric, then they would have had, if they adhered to the original PGS guidelines. At least that is the way I read between the lines.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 10/18/2008 12:24:12 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 10/17/2008 8:43:27 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I hear you Marty - but the difference in PGS results from symmetry is far less than anything I expect you could imagine. I have seen many examples of it when buying.

But I do understand where you are coming from - and it is of course a factor.

But let me try to explain again why I think that Sergey makes a point that is not an attack on AGS - it is advice / question from manufacturers.

A stone comes off the wheel - it is run thru PGS, has a AGS0 for light performance - and has pretty good sym and polish.
Manufacturer must decide to send or not send it to AGS -so somoene must spend 1 hour looking thru a microscope to see if it will pass IDEAL sym and poish.
Now they could simply shoot it thru after a good look with a loupe knowing that if it does not get AGS 0 it can get AGS Ideal as a safe fall back.

The trouble is the quick PGS test is not a safe fallback. So AGS will not get the doubling of business it is aiming for and a simplification for their clients at the cutting side.

You see Garry, neither you nor I (nor Sergey) can do the arithmetic to compute the resultant PBS (parameter based system) metric, and we will see changes in the PGS with inclusion of fire, scintillation, etc. They are evolving systems.
I have no problem with evolution of systems Marty - I hope out of this GIA might take an opportunity to have another look at their "brillianteering" - I believe AGSL gleaned the digging/painting limits of the GIA system with information they were given by manufacturers - and while I have no doubt AGS would be happy to consider improvements to that system - it would be far more important by way of "consumer protection" if the worlds "authority" was to fix just that part of their system.

But I do not understand when you say that: neither you nor I (nor Sergey) can do the arithmetic to compute the resultant PBS (parameter based system) metric. why not? if you have the software then you can run the proportions and make a table - or you can take the tables that AGS do and send out to manufacturers. Did I miss something? In the past AGS said the manufacturers charts were conservative and had a safe edge to allow for some sym deviations etc - so why is the parametric system different - did Sergey make a mistake - if so can someone please give him the info - I am sure he will accept it like a gentleman.



Although I don''t particularly like the 2D parameter based system concept, as a regression of sorts to the stone age, I can see where they are coming from, but at least they (AGS) haven''t put in the stooopid taste test to be all things to the seller and the hell with the consumer.

As to Sergey''s example, I think (but don''t really know for sure) if cutters go toward the newer parameter based contours, AND have Ideal polish and symmetry, then they have a better chance of getting the higher light performance grade PGS metric, then they would have had, if they adhered to the original PGS guidelines. At least that is the way I read between the lines. I agree - but I think some extra business will come fro the stones that would otherwise have been AGS 1 dropped down by polish or symmetry. selling them as AGS Ideal will probably achieve the same price as AGS 0 - since few will know or care. And then the real biz will come from AGS Excellent which are by default AGS Ex ID ID thru the range down to AGS EX EX EX.

 

[Serg]

Marty,

Symmetry is not issue at all.
I compare “ Absolute symmetry ” diamond with “ Absolute symmetry ” diamond ( apple with apple)
Of course PGS 0 result sis not GARANTY for cutters, because symmetry , polish, and other issues could be not enough for ASG Platinum 0 grade . ( same for AGS gold grading system. Set of parameters is not enough for final grade)
Please do not start this argue again. We do not compare apple and orange.
Our point what if SAME REAL polished diamond could receive AGS GOLD VG grade and AGS Platinum 0 grade is very Misleading for market.
It is even more misleading than GIA excellent grade and AGS 4 grade for same real polished diamond( all we were agree early what such contradictory grade systems are not good for consumer confidence )
Now situation even worse, because contradictory grades could come from one Lab( papers are different of course , but both these papers have same Consumer BRAND)

 

[Regular Guy]

Good morning.

In the spirit of being willing to ask a dumb question in the hope of adding a little value at least for myself (actually...having earlier not made the observation I did just make, and having assumed about this yesterday, I became very excited)...I presume in your chart presented here in this post, Serg (but missing the chart as I post it below):

Date: 10/17/2008 3:29:56 AM
Author: Serg
Chart AGS2008&AGSPGSnovember2007

you''re intentionally not posting comparative data for pavilion at the odd degrees...(i.e. for 34.5 crown...a) at 40.8 it shows both ID and 0, but b) at 40.9, it just shows ID).

 

[Serg]

Date: 10/18/2008 3:59:38 AM
Author: Regular Guy
Good morning.

In the spirit of being willing to ask a dumb question in the hope of adding a little value at least for myself (actually...having earlier not made the observation I did just make, and having assumed about this yesterday, I became very excited)...I presume in your chart presented here in this post, Serg (but missing the chart as I post it below):

Date: 10/17/2008 3:29:56 AM
Author: Serg
Chart AGS2008&AGSPGSnovember2007

you''re intentionally not posting comparative data for pavilion at the odd degrees...(i.e. for 34.5 crown...a) at 40.8 it shows both ID and 0, but b) at 40.9, it just shows ID).

We have not yet PGS data for odd pavilion angles. We need calculate it firstly. I think this information is not critical now

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/17/2008 10:41:50 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

You mistake Pricescope for the WORLD outside Storm.

Firstly - AGS will give an emailed ''verbal'', so there is no additional ''sending'' and this will save the manufacturer additional time and shipping costs. And it will be easier for the person responding to make a no brainer decision.


Secondly - you perhaps did not understand the reason for John''s Podcast for AGS? Out there in trinket flogging land IDEAL is the word -it is the term that is abused (aside from Sergey''s view that the term is limiting) - many people say ''this is an IDEAL cut diamond - and then they must explain why it says on the GIA paper that it is infact only EXCELLENT.


AGS can solve some problems - and I have heard Peter lament that during presentations to retailers (and even Gemologists) few people cotton on to the light performance idea. Remember us trinket floggers need to know about tic toc''s, treatments for amethyst and all sorts of stuff as well as diamond stuff (Please Sir, can I go home, my brain is full now).

There isn''t much a small group like PS can do to a 800LB gorilla like GIA but there is a lot that can be done to a boutique lab.
The consumer that AGS reports target are far more likely to find PS than the average GIA consumer.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 10/18/2008 3:21:04 AM
Author: Serg

Marty,

Symmetry is not issue at all.
I compare “ Absolute symmetry ” diamond with “ Absolute symmetry ” diamond ( apple with apple)
Of course PGS 0 result sis not GARANTY for cutters, because symmetry , polish, and other issues could be not enough for ASG Platinum 0 grade . ( same for AGS gold grading system. Set of parameters is not enough for final grade)
Please do not start this argue again. We do not compare apple and orange.
Our point what if SAME REAL polished diamond could receive AGS GOLD VG grade and AGS Platinum 0 grade is very Misleading for market.
It is even more misleading than GIA excellent grade and AGS 4 grade for same real polished diamond( all we were agree early what such contradictory grade systems are not good for consumer confidence )
Now situation even worse, because contradictory grades could come from one Lab( papers are different of course , but both these papers have same Consumer BRAND)

Sergey You are comparing TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, with different criteria, one that is based on the ACTUAL STONE, and another that has to ASSUME that the stone is perfectly symmetric, even though it may well not be, and it has to ASSUME what measurement divergences make up a symmetry class one grade lower than before.

So it makes perfect sense that one system may have tighter borders, especially when it is operating on or near ridge lines. Your example, while interesting, DOES NOT make the proper assumptions that have to be made for the two classes of grading systems. One system HAS TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS the other doesn't, and therefore probably SHOULDN'T give the higher grade.

Think of it as comparing grading clarity with eyeball, a 10x loupe, and 10X binocular magnification. Now think of a VVS2 stone, since we are dealing at the top of the line stones. It is more likely to miss the VVS2 inclusion without any aid (eyeball), and it is probably easier to position the VVS2 inclusion with binocular darkfield than a plain loupe.

So with just your eyeball you are not going to give a stone an F or IF grade with any degree of confidence, let alone a VVS1 or VVS2. You might say with a higher degree of confidence, it is a VS1 or better. If you want the better grade that MOGHT be possible, then let be use all the tools available (and not just the averages without looking at the standard deviations)

Do you get the concept. ???? You CAN't make the argument you are trynig to make logically. Well you can, but those who apply common sense might choose to ignore it as a fallacious argument

And since you obviously know the answer(s), what are the standard deviations assumed for Ideal symmetry for the pavilion angle, and what are they for EX or VG or Good symmetry. Let alone the rest of the puzzle.

 

[Serg]

Date: 10/18/2008 1:56:41 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 10/18/2008 3:21:04 AM
Author: Serg

Marty,

Symmetry is not issue at all.
I compare “ Absolute symmetry ” diamond with “ Absolute symmetry ” diamond ( apple with apple)
Of course PGS 0 result sis not GARANTY for cutters, because symmetry , polish, and other issues could be not enough for ASG Platinum 0 grade . ( same for AGS gold grading system. Set of parameters is not enough for final grade)
Please do not start this argue again. We do not compare apple and orange.
Our point what if SAME REAL polished diamond could receive AGS GOLD VG grade and AGS Platinum 0 grade is very Misleading for market.
It is even more misleading than GIA excellent grade and AGS 4 grade for same real polished diamond( all we were agree early what such contradictory grade systems are not good for consumer confidence )
Now situation even worse, because contradictory grades could come from one Lab( papers are different of course , but both these papers have same Consumer BRAND)

Sergey You are comparing TWO DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, with different criteria, one that is based on the ACTUAL STONE, and another that has to ASSUME that the stone is perfectly symmetric, even though it may well not be, and it has to ASSUME what measurement divergences make up a symmetry class one grade lower than before.

So it makes perfect sense that one system may have tighter borders, especially when it is operating on or near ridge lines. Your example, while interesting, DOES NOT make the proper assumptions that have to be made for the two classes of grading systems. One system HAS TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS the other doesn''t, and therefore probably SHOULDN''T give the higher grade.

Think of it as comparing grading clarity with eyeball, a 10x loupe, and 10X binocular magnification. Now think of a VVS2 stone, since we are dealing at the top of the line stones. It is more likely to miss the VVS2 inclusion without any aid (eyeball), and it is probably easier to position the VVS2 inclusion with binocular darkfield than a plain loupe.

So with just your eyeball you are not going to give a stone an F or IF grade with any degree of confidence, let alone a VVS1 or VVS2. You might say with a higher degree of confidence, it is a VS1 or better. If you want the better grade that MOGHT be possible, then let be use all the tools available (and not just the averages without looking at the standard deviations)

Do you get the concept. ???? You CAN''t make the argument you are trynig to make logically. Well you can, but those who apply common sense might choose to ignore it as a fallacious argument

And since you obviously know the answer(s), what are the standard deviations assumed for Ideal symmetry for the pavilion angle, and what are they for EX or VG or Good symmetry. Let alone the rest of the puzzle.

Marty,

Our point what if SAME REAL polished diamond could receive AGS GOLD VG grade and AGS Platinum 0 grade is very Misleading for market.

Do you get it?

I can cut such diamond .

Do you agree pay cost the diamond+ cost ASG grading if this diamond will receive AGS GOLD EX( not VG but specially for you I agree try cut such VG diamond if ASG confirm what ASG did not change rules of ASG Platinum grading ) and AGS Platinum 0 ( real papers)?

ASG Gold EX is not best AGS grade in AGS gold grading system

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 10/18/2008 3:28:44 PM
Author: Serg


Marty,

Our point what if SAME REAL polished diamond could receive AGS GOLD VG grade and AGS Platinum 0 grade is very Misleading for market. Sergey, so is the reverse situation where labs call a piece of junk the top grade. It is not misleading when it is preseted as a partial analysis, which may not yield the highest score becuase of the necessary assumptions to accomodate the trade''s ignorance.

Do you get it? Sergey, I get it, it is you that refuses to comprehend they are two different systems based on DIFFERENT data and assumptions.

I can cut such diamond . So what

Do you agree pay cost the diamond+ cost ASG grading if this diamond will receive AGS GOLD EX( not VG but specially for you I agree try cut such VG diamond if ASG confirm what ASG did not change rules of ASG Platinum grading ) and AGS Platinum 0 ( real papers)? Why the hell should I do that????
To what purpose????

And besides I can''t understand what you are trying to prove or disprove and with what agenda? They are two different systems, period, and just because you can get a better or different grade by looking at something with more detail and with a different criteria to set the grade doesn''t make it right or wrong.

The NEW system doesn''t KNOW how errored the measurements are that it is being given, EVEN IF THEY ARE PERFECT, AS IN YOUR FLAWED EXAMPLE.

Consequently a purely parameter 2D based system has to make allowance (assumption) that the averaged measurements given COULD be bad, (by having a high or some standard deviation) hence the possibility of a lower net grade, especially if I may be walking along the edge of a cliff.

That is the way it should logically work, and apparently does, much to your dismay.


ASG Gold EX is not best AGS grade in AGS gold grading system Geeze, finally something I can agree with.

 

[Regular Guy]

One way or the other, regardless of exactly why AGS is bringing the new Ideal & AGS system forward, it remains to be seen why a shopper will end up being motivated to select this new AGS Ideal, vs an available AGS0. Although my first thought is that channels will have to be different, i.e., a shop may have the new AGS Ideal as their top end, vs a place like WF deciding to make AGS their certification of choice for either ACA or ES stones, using these options respectively...I think Dave covers the logic of both ends pretty well here...

Date: 10/15/2008 5:21:07 PM
Author: oldminer

Your last question about what AGS is doing. I feel they are giving us an open system which is more liberal and simple than the eariler light performance version. The reasons can be many, but I feel an important reason to go this way for AGSL is to get more volume through the lab. Liberalizing the 'standards' is something dealers will like. They will give slightly less well cut stones to AGSL and everyone will learn to love the newest version of AGS 0 Ideal. There still will remain the premium for the truly finer AGS0 cut stones, but the consumer will have to hunt more diligently for them. Dealers like to make consumers work a little, whether it is a price thing or a quality thing, the profit is derived from selling a diamond for a few dollars more than it cost and if one can get yet a few more bucks on top because of mystery grading, then that will make most sellers even happier. That's capitalism and business. It isn't as bad as any of the alternatives, but one must protect oneself when buying.

Although an earlier misunderstanding about the Serg's data threw me off a bit...some main ideas seem to remain:

1) The existence of the new system provides some kind of ironic effect for me...and maybe for others. By giving voice to an alternative system...and the implications for judging diamonds classified under its performance...unless an unexpectedly significant margin of discount were provided to it...somehow the new "brand" makes the 0 option newly more attractive. Kind of like a "new coke" phenomena.

2) An initial motivation, then, is to call the new AGS Ideal...the McCain. Why? Because it's sort of Ideal-Feh(y), as in Tina Fey.

 

[michaelgem]

It appears that Sergey has done perhaps the best analysis possible to compare the two AGS systems as evidenced by his chart. His cut study group has also done the best analysis of the PGS software, by generating the tables of crown/pavilion angle conditioned on the table size, ideal symmetry, normal indexing and fixed/usual settings for the other parameters.

These charts are the best way to communicate both AGS systems to the cutters and to our benefit. Looking at two dimensional crown/paviion slices of the 3-D crown/pavilion/table light performance measure, we get a grasp of how these three dimensions interact together to produce the diamonds performance score. This is under the given optimum conditions such as ideal optical symmetry and usual half and star lengths. These three parameters have the most important impact on weight yield and optical performance. After deciding on table size and pav and crown angles, the cutter can then optimize the remaining parameters. This is a good way for the cutter to proceed.

For folks who say this can't be done or has no meaning, I say Sergey has done it, and it will be and has been effectively used by cutters. Important insights are also obtainable by simply looking at the 56% table slice through the center (fattest slice) of the 3-D (table, pav and crown angle) performance solid. Note that a cutter wishing to have the greatest flexibility/ range of pav/crown angles can, by cutting close to a 56 table, have the greatest range of pav/crown angle combinations to work with in obtaining either GIA EX or AGS Ideal 0.

Thank you to Sergey and the cut study group (which incidently includes our Cut Nut, Garry.)

Michael D. Cowing

 

[oldminer]

When a major lab comes up with two ways to grade the cut, I believe they should retain the Platinum Standard as the grading scale and adjust the findings of the less stringent methodology so that the grades provided to end users never confuse the possible outcome.

Let''s say on a lab''s Platinum Standard are the following grades: Ideal - Excellent - Very Good - Good - Fair
Then I''d suggest split grtades as a smart way of making the less stringent, Gold Standard, grade result read as follows:
Ideal to Excellent, Ideal to Very Good, Excellent to Very Good, Excellent to Good, Very Good to Good, Very Good to Fair, Good to Fair, Fair.

This would allow users to understand that there is a broader range of outcomes using the less stringent parametric scale. It would not misrepresent the quality of the cut and still be providing meaningful data to end users. If one wanted to split the hair further, then a report using the Platinum Standard could always be requested.

 

[risingsun]

As a PS member, I can understand the difference between an AGS Ideal 0 with a DQD and an AGS Ideal with a DQR. I can't imagine what the general diamond-buying public will make of it. I don't think it's a wise choice to use the term "ideal" at all in the DQR. I believe it will cause confusion and both vendors and customers will be at a disadvantage. the Ideal grade is supposed to have a specific meaning and this new system dilutes that meaning. Does anyone want to be in the position of trying to explain why one AGS Ideal graded diamond is better than another?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 10/20/2008 9:29:29 AM
Author: oldminer
When a major lab comes up with two ways to grade the cut, I believe they should retain the Platinum Standard as the grading scale and adjust the findings of the less stringent methodology so that the grades provided to end users never confuse the possible outcome.

Let''s say on a lab''s Platinum Standard are the following grades: Ideal - Excellent - Very Good - Good - Fair
Then I''d suggest split grtades as a smart way of making the less stringent, Gold Standard, grade result read as follows:
Ideal to Excellent, Ideal to Very Good, Excellent to Very Good, Excellent to Good, Very Good to Good, Very Good to Fair, Good to Fair, Fair.

This would allow users to understand that there is a broader range of outcomes using the less stringent parametric scale. It would not misrepresent the quality of the cut and still be providing meaningful data to end users. If one wanted to split the hair further, then a report using the Platinum Standard could always be requested.

Dave, that makes sense, because that is what seems to be really happening, in general.

Although I would personally REVERSE the wording, from a consumer protection standoint. i.e. use the LOWER grade terminology first.. like "Very Good to Excellent", if, in fact you can "really" quantify a 2D parameterized system that finely, especially around the ridge/grade boundarycontours, regions of sharpest falloff.

I seems that what is happening is that there might be regions where there is a one grade range, other areas with a either a two or even three grade possibility within a "box".

In reality, it is a probability issue we are dealing with, where, for a given case, one "box" might be represented by a
10%I/60%E/30%VG, and an ajoining "box" might wind up being "40%I/50%E/10%VG.

People do not understand that even with a Platinum type system, there are confidence bounds for the estimate, hence the real inability to make absolute "boxes", and the resulting cutting quidelines issue.

For example, to use a crude example, a stone might have table measurements of 56/56/56/56 or 58/55/54/57, both of which AVERAGE to 56%, but are two distinctly different stones.

Simplistically, the 56/56/56/56 table case might have eight equal crown angles or the eight angles may vary widely because the girdle is wavy. The possibilities are endless.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/20/2008 11:54:28 AM
Author: adamasgem


For example, to use a crude example, a stone might have table measurements of 56/56/56/56 or 58/55/54/57, both of which AVERAGE to 56%, but are two distinctly different stones.


Simplistically, the 56/56/56/56 table case might have eight equal crown angles or the eight angles may vary widely because the girdle is wavy. The possibilities are endless.

Another example is a diamond with certain numbers and 80% lgf% will get plat. ideal but not with 75% lgf%.
Both of those will get ideal under the gold system.

How about the stones that Todd used to call fake ideals what would be cut with a wide range of pavilion angles to average just under the required number on the old AGS system.
AGS is heading back to those days.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 10/20/2008 12:07:00 PM
Author: strmrdr

Another example is a diamond with certain numbers and 80% lgf% will get plat. ideal but not with 75% lgf%.
Both of those will get ideal under the gold system.

How about the stones that Todd used to call fake ideals what would be cut with a wide range of pavilion angles to average just under the required number on the old AGS system.
AGS is heading back to those days.

Storm, yes, it appears a regression of a sort back to 2D, forced by the economic dominance of the 800# gorrila in the room, but it is still probably better than the generations OLD AGS 2D parameter based system (the original 0-10) because of the research behind it, and yet it appears still much more selective than GIA.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/20/2008 12:49:58 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 10/20/2008 12:07:00 PM

Author: strmrdr


Another example is a diamond with certain numbers and 80% lgf% will get plat. ideal but not with 75% lgf%.

Both of those will get ideal under the gold system.


How about the stones that Todd used to call fake ideals what would be cut with a wide range of pavilion angles to average just under the required number on the old AGS system.

AGS is heading back to those days.

Storm, yes, it appears a regression of a sort back to 2D, forced by the economic dominance of the 800# gorrila in the room, but it is still probably better than the generations OLD AGS 2D parameter based system (the original 0-10) because of the research behind it, and yet it appears still much more selective than GIA.

In my opinion if one has no other information other than the cut grade the odds of the potential of getting a nice high performance round that may not be the best of the best but solid worth buying high performance stones with the systems are:
Before tricks and selective cutting.
AGS DQD Ideal - 96% confidence
AGS Gold Ideal 85% confidence
GIA EX - 75% confidence.

After cutting tricks and selective cutting.
AGS DQD Ideal - 95% confidence (there isn't a lot of room for cheating and its the tightest range)
AGS Gold Ideal - 40% confidence (an awful lot of them will be cut to the steepest deepest allowed)
GIA EX - 20% confidence. (an awful lot of them ARE cut to the steepest deepest allowed)

The AGS DQD Ideal is almost immune to tricks and selective cutting that was why it was an advance.
Tricks and selective cutting can lower the potential for the consumer to get what the grade promised by a huge margin in 2d systems.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 10/20/2008 6:19:49 PM
Author: strmrdr

In my opinion if one has no other information other than the cut grade the odds of the potential of getting a nice high performance round that may not be the best of the best but solid worth buying high performance stones with the systems are:
Before tricks and selective cutting.
AGS DQD Ideal - 96% confidence
AGS Gold Ideal 85% confidence
GIA EX - 75% confidence.

After cutting tricks and selective cutting.
AGS DQD Ideal - 95% confidence (there isn't a lot of room for cheating and its the tightest range)
AGS Gold Ideal - 40% confidence (an awful lot of them will be cut to the steepest deepest allowed)
GIA EX - 20% confidence. (an awful lot of them ARE cut to the steepest deepest allowed)

The AGS DQD Ideal is almost immune to tricks and selective cutting that was why it was an advance.
Tricks and selective cutting can lower the potential for the consumer to get what the grade promised by a huge margin in 2d systems.

Storm, I don't know what the actual confidence level numbers would turn out to be (in your example), but I believe your general concept with the ability to swindle a stone versus grading system, is right on the money.

The charts that Gary showd in page two of this thread
https://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/download.asp?fileID=141134&topicID=97120&forumID=3&catID=1

certainly suggest that what you say is true.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 10/17/2008 10:41:50 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 10/17/2008 10:21:15 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 10/17/2008 8:43:27 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I hear you Marty - but the difference in PGS results from symmetry is far less than anything I expect you could imagine. I have seen many examples of it when buying.


But I do understand where you are coming from - and it is of course a factor.


But let me try to explain again why I think that Sergey makes a point that is not an attack on AGS - it is advice / question from manufacturers.


A stone comes off the wheel - it is run thru PGS, has a AGS0 for light performance - and has pretty good sym and polish.

Manufacturer must decide to send or not send it to AGS -so somoene must spend 1 hour looking thru a microscope to see if it will pass IDEAL sym and poish.

Now they could simply shoot it thru after a good look with a loupe knowing that if it does not get AGS 0 it can get AGS Ideal as a safe fall back.


The trouble is the quick PGS test is not a safe fallback. So AGS will not get the doubling of business it is aiming for and a simplification for their clients at the cutting side.

But if AGS Ideal loses any premium it might have by grade dilution then there is no reason to send it to AGS in the first place.
That will happen!
The doubling of business only works if consumers and the trade are willing to accept the new Ideal as having the same value as 3d Ideal.
Some in the trade might try it but we the consumers will just add it to our list of dirty tricks to watch out for.
So AGS loses twice, they lose consumer confidence and they lose those that count on the premium.

You mistake Pricescope for the WORLD outside Storm.
Firstly - AGS will give an emailed 'verbal', so there is no additional 'sending' and this will save the manufacturer additional time and shipping costs. And it will be easier for the person responding to make a no brainer decision.

Secondly - you perhaps did not understand the reason for John's Podcast for AGS? Out there in trinket flogging land IDEAL is the word -it is the term that is abused (aside from Sergey's view that the term is limiting) - many people say 'this is an IDEAL cut diamond - and then they must explain why it says on the GIA paper that it is infact only EXCELLENT.

AGS can solve some problems - and I have heard Peter lament that during presentations to retailers (and even Gemologists) few people cotton on to the light performance idea. Remember us trinket floggers need to know about tic toc's, treatments for amethyst and all sorts of stuff as well as diamond stuff (Please Sir, can I go home, my brain is full now).

I can appreciate AGS' problem here. Part of it stems from being a victim of their own weapon.

At one time, only AGS used the word Ideal as a cut grade, so “Ideal” was their de facto brand. It was a great approach for them; if you wanted to buy the ultimate in cut, discriminating buyers just had to look for "Ideal" (which then only meant AGS0 Ideal).

The top-make market segment learned to ask for “ideal” stones. Dealers (especially those who didn’t carry AGS stones) had to find a way to respond/compete so they wouldn’t lose business. They did so by explaining that Ideal refers to cut and asserting that their top-make stones were comparably cut and were just as ‘ideal’ (little I).

Now, we’re at a place when the generic use of “ideal” has eclipsed the AGS “Ideal” moniker in usage, and that has in turn diluted their de facto brand. It's also diluted their REAL brand, because confused consumers (and some vendors) don't appreciate the difference between AGS0 Ideal and generic "ideal".

The problem AGS now faces is this: you can't untrain the monkey. The top-make market looks for the "ideal" label (meaning little I, generic ideal), so moving away from that nomenclature means retraining the market.....a herculean undertaking that even if successful would be a years-long endeavor.

They also need to increase market share, and they can't do that by focusing exclusively on AGS 0 ID/ID stones.

By letting their DQR-Ideal stones compete with comparable generic ideal (little I) stones, they still capture the market segment that wants "ideal" (generic). They still need a way to differentiate their creme-de-la-creme, though, and that's the DQD-Ideal.

The Gold/Platinum differential seems reminiscent of the AMEX versions - Gold Card, Platinum card, etc., but I don't think the gold/platinum is a good moniker choice in this instance. I also don't think that relying on the 0 is the best because it's not 'catchy enough' to stick in the market place. If they don't refer to them as D-Ideal and R-Ideal, then perhaps they refer to the DQD version as their Triple Crown Ideal....something that sets it apart from the other ideals.

The better they are with nomenclature, the less the market will get confused. After all, the market has survived having both the "old" and "new" AGS Ideal versions simultaneously when the cut grade metrics were amended. It also survived having AGS0 and AGS0 Light Performance versions. Properly (and easily) distinguished, there's no reason to think that they couldn't also be successful with a DQD-Ideal and a DQR-Ideal.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 10/18/2008 7:01:27 PM
Author: Regular Guy

One way or the other, regardless of exactly why AGS is bringing the new Ideal & AGS system forward, it remains to be seen why a shopper will end up being motivated to select this new AGS Ideal, vs an available AGS0.

I don''t see this step as being driven by a desire to motivate customers. Rather, I see it as a desire to motivate the cutters who are submitting the stones.

The things that represent the most value to cutters submitting their stones is "AGS Ideal" or "GIA EX".....it''s the top label that matters. Because GIA''s ''top label'' includes approximately 5x the number of stones that AGS'' top label does, there''s more incentive to go to GIA.

If now all 5 stones earn an AGS Ideal or a GIA Ex, that levels the playing field. AGS can still preserve their "ultimate ideal" by still carving out a class of ideals that are supreme ideals.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 10/20/2008 11:03:58 AM
Author: risingsun
As a PS member, I can understand the difference between an AGS Ideal 0 with a DQD and an AGS Ideal with a DQR. I can't imagine what the general diamond-buying public will make of it. I don't think it's a wise choice to use the term 'ideal' at all in the DQR. I believe it will cause confusion and both vendors and customers will be at a disadvantage. the Ideal grade is supposed to have a specific meaning and this new system dilutes that meaning. Does anyone want to be in the position of trying to explain why one AGS Ideal graded diamond is better than another?

Marian, I think the 'Ideal' grade already is diluted, not by the proposed new system but by the trade's casual use of the word 'ideal' when they mean 'top-make'. That dilution already exists in the marketplace, and instead of fighting a losing battle in trying to put Pandora back in the box, AGS is looking to maximize on that dilution to their advantage (which will hopefully incent more cutters to submit a wider range of stones to them) while still carving out their 'supreme' or 'elite' line of stones.

I don't think it would be that hard to explain the difference; it's been done before right here on Pricescope.

When AGS changed it's grading system and went to light performance, people referred to "old AGS0" (pre-2005 system) and "new AGS0" or "light-performance AGS0".

If asked on PS to explain the difference between DQD-Ideal and DQR-Ideal, I'd likely say "the DQD-Ideal is based on 3D light performance measurement of the actual stone while the DQR-Ideal is based on a 2d parameter-based metric."

 

[Allison D.]

Our point what if SAME REAL polished diamond could receive AGS GOLD VG grade and AGS Platinum 0 grade is very Misleading for market.

What if it did? Why is that a problem?

I''d imagine that DQD-Ideals should be capable of earning the top grade under either report structure, but DQR-Ideals would likely only be capable of earning the top grade under the DQR report. Why? Because it doesn''t make to get a DQR report for a stone that qualifies for the more elite DQD.

If a stone qualifies for Ideal under both systems, of course the cutter would prefer it to bear the DQD, right?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 10/20/2008 9:34:39 PM
Author: Allison D.

D-Ideal and R-Ideal,

Hey man, that''s cool, this one - she''s De'' Ideal

No Sir, you are wrong, this one is the Real ideal - you can tell because it is writen in plain English and not some code.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I''m so confused...

 

[risingsun]

Date: 10/20/2008 9:34:39 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 10/20/2008 11:03:58 AM
Author: risingsun
As a PS member, I can understand the difference between an AGS Ideal 0 with a DQD and an AGS Ideal with a DQR. I can't imagine what the general diamond-buying public will make of it. I don't think it's a wise choice to use the term 'ideal' at all in the DQR. I believe it will cause confusion and both vendors and customers will be at a disadvantage. the Ideal grade is supposed to have a specific meaning and this new system dilutes that meaning. Does anyone want to be in the position of trying to explain why one AGS Ideal graded diamond is better than another?

Marian, I think the 'Ideal' grade already is diluted, not by the proposed new system but by the trade's casual use of the word 'ideal' when they mean 'top-make'. That dilution already exists in the marketplace, and instead of fighting a losing battle in trying to put Pandora back in the box, AGS is looking to maximize on that dilution to their advantage (which will hopefully incent more cutters to submit a wider range of stones to them) while still carving out their 'supreme' or 'elite' line of stones.

I don't think it would be that hard to explain the difference; it's been done before right here on Pricescope.

When AGS changed it's grading system and went to light performance, people referred to 'old AGS0' (pre-2005 system) and 'new AGS0' or 'light-performance AGS0'.

If asked on PS to explain the difference between DQD-Ideal and DQR-Ideal, I'd likely say 'the DQD-Ideal is based on 3D light performance measurement of the actual stone while the DQR-Ideal is based on a 2d parameter-based metric.'

Thanks for your response, Alj. I think that the consumer's concerns can get lost in these types of threads. Hopefully, the vendors who do sell both grades of AGS Ideal diamonds will have the ability and desire to educate their customers. There are already too many jewelers and sales associates who do not have this depth of knowledge. Fortunately, my online and B&M jewelers do have the knowledge base that I expect. When this new grading report becomes available, we'll need to ramp up the learning curve on these forums to help newcomers, as well as ourselves! I'm planning to save both Paul's and your responses for educational purposes

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 10/20/2008 10:05:34 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 10/20/2008 9:34:39 PM
Author: Allison D.

D-Ideal and R-Ideal,

Hey man, that''s cool, this one - she''s De'' Ideal

No Sir, you are wrong, this one is the Real ideal - you can tell because it is writen in plain English and not some code.

LOL - Garry.....

Sorry - that was supposed to have read DQD-Ideal and DQR-Ideal.

In this way, it would point back to the reports (which defines how they are different).

 

[michaelgem]

I''d imagine that DQD-Ideals should be capable of earning the top grade under either report structure, but DQR-Ideals would likely only be capable of earning the top grade under the DQR report. Alj

Allison, Sergey''s combined chart shows DQR-Ideals that do not make AGS Ideal 0''s, but of more concern are areas where an AGS Ideal 0 did not make DQR-Ideal. One area showed a combination that can get AGS Ideal 0 but only gets a very good gold call.

Near as I can understand the cause may be largly edge and rounding effects as you would be correct in expecting every AGS Ideal 0 to make DQR-Ideal including the counter examples pointed out by Sergey.

I think the DQR-Ideal is being positioned as tighter than the GIA Excellent but more forgiving than the AGS Ideal 0. And the DQR-Ex seems to have a wider, more forgiving range than the GIA EX.

Another interesting point I believe is that AGS wants to retain the Platinum systems integrity, letting the PGS software make the Ideal 0 call, while using GIA-like charting with the Gold standard for ease of use and predictability for the cutters, sort of like the better cutter guidline charts Sergey and I were asking AGS for a year ago.

Like Peter has told me and others many times concerning the platinum standard, If it gets the grade with the PGS software, it gets the grade. Now he can add: If the Gold standard charts say it gets the grade, it gets the gold standard grade.

It''s clear a lot of work and thought went into the Gold standard charts, and perhaps a few corrections at the boundaries would complete the job. I asked for guideline charts, and in a sense this is an answer, so I''m not complaining.

One last note, the PGS software grade is sensitive to every variable including diamond diameter, so the same proportions in a larger diamond may get a different grade. The DQR charts must make simplyfying assumptions to keep it simple with one set of charts fitting all sizes of diameter and girdle thickness and painting and digging etc. within the listed ranges allowed for each grade. That is bound to make for difficult performance predictions at grade boundaries.

Michael D. Cowing

 

[Serg]

Date: 10/20/2008 9:59:05 PM
Author: Allison D.

Our point what if SAME REAL polished diamond could receive AGS GOLD VG grade and AGS Platinum 0 grade is very Misleading for market.

What if it did? Why is that a problem?

I'd imagine that DQD-Ideals should be capable of earning the top grade under either report structure, but DQR-Ideals would likely only be capable of earning the top grade under the DQR report. Why? Because it doesn't make to get a DQR report for a stone that qualifies for the more elite DQD.

If a stone qualifies for Ideal under both systems, of course the cutter would prefer it to bear the DQD, right?

Allison, Marty

Firstly I need add what
If same real polished diamond will receive AGS GOLD Ideal grade and just AGS Platinum 2 grade is not Misleading for market. It is not problem( not perfect symmetry is simple explanation. All Marty post explains it

Misleading if diamond receives TOP grade in TOP AGS grading system and just third grade in NEW ASG grading system.
Some Consumer could start think what NEW AGS grading system is more strict than AGS Platinum( 3d light performance ASG Brand) . But new ASG GOLD grading system is more softer.

My opinion what ASG GOLD Ideal should include ASG Platinum 0. but some points Top Platinum grade is outside Top Gold grade range AND some points Top Gold grade is outside Top Platinum grade range.

It is creating chaos in understanding, it is reduce consumer confidence to ASG cut grade .