AGS - more expensive?

[Upgrading_finally]

Why are AGS stones usually cost more? I''ve looked at many and seems to me they always are a bit more than even GIA.

??

Thanks.

 

[oldminer]

You get a bit more information on an AGS report and it is an excellent report. Is it worth more? Ask yourself if a Mercedes is "worth" more than a similar BMW automobile?

It is a perception of value that drives many purchasers, not intrinsic values. If you ask a premium price you have the potential for more profit. Sell the sizzle not just the steak.

The public seems willing to pay for good information so the extra cost may be what the market will bear.

 

[rbjd]

I think the reasons AGS are more expensive have to do with the fact that AGS puts "Ideal" cut specifications on their reports, and GIA does not do this FOR STONES WITHIN CERTAIN CUT PARAMETERS. Thus some consumers are LED TO BELIEVE they are getting a better diamond if it is AGS. Consequently they might pay a little more.

However, months of research and market study leads me to believe that GIA EX/EX stones with Sarin reports that indicate AGS CUT GRADE 0 proportions might as well be identical. The theory is that you could send such a stone to AGS and get a CUT GRADE 0 rating. Cut is cut is cut, and the actual numbers aren't made up by GIA or AGS, they just report the information (or some of it).

You may notice you won't see a lot of AGS stones for sale THAT ARE ANYTHING OTHER THAN AGS CUT GRADE 0. It seems evident from this fact that vendors CAN GET MORE MONEY FOR AGS CUT GRADE 0 stones, BUT NOT for AGS CUT GRADES 1 or 2, grades that could still be covered under a GIA EX/EX grading report. If you were a dealer, you'd want a GIA cert in this case, I suppose.

When I buy my diamond in a couple of months, you can be sure I'm not paying as much attention to whether it is AGS or GIA, BUT WHETHER THE SARIN DATA AND THE LIGHT RETURN DATA ARE IN THE RANGE I WANT. At the end of the day, all I care about is how the stone looks. To be sure, AGS CUT GRADE 0 IS NO GUARANTEE OF THE BEST CUT STONE. There have been many examples here, even recently, of not so nice AGS 0 stones. One had a 64.1 depth and IS NOT what most people here would consider to be an "ideal" cut, even though AGS said it was.

I'm of the firm opinion that GIA EX/EX or even VG/VG stones with certain PREFERRED PROPORTIONS AND ANGLES are equally "ideal". It ain't the grading report that makes the stone. It's the cut. Why pay a premium for AGS 0 if you don't have to?

 

[Iceman]

Would you feel better , buying a diamond with a certification that was not correct or
holding important information hostage? I look at AGS reflecting the correct product
, which reflects the correct market price.

If you get an in correct appraisal and it tells you its a "J" color but really it is an "M",
would you still think its a great deal?

AGS just is not more expensive , just more accurate

 

[oldminer]

Ditto

 

[rbjd]

I should clarify a point I was trying to make:

I personally would not buy a diamond that was not graded by GIA or AGS simply for the fact that the clarity and color grading of these two labs by all accounts is the most accurate. I gather HRD is acceptable as well.

HOWEVER, that being said, TO SUGGEST THAT AGS IS SOMEHOW BETTER THAN A GIA REPORT COUPLED WITH A SARIN ANALYSIS IS MISLEADING. My original point was that you don't need AGS to tell you that a particular diamond is "ideal" cut. As for color and clarity, the consensus is that AGS and GIA are equally acceptable. Again, why pay a premium for AGS 0 if you don't have to. I know if I can find a GIA VG/VG or EX/EX within my cut proportion parameters (and it has the LIGHT RETURN CHARACTERISTICS I'm looking for) and it is less expensive than a similar AGS graded stone, I won't hesitate to buy the GIA diamond.

On some level it seems that the majority of experts agree that LIGHT RETURN is among the most important features of a diamond and LIGHT RETURN is dictated primarily by CUT. Neither GIA or AGS SAY ANYTHING about LIGHT RETURN and in that regard they are both totally useless. So AGS puts a couple more numbers on their reports. So what? That's what a Sarin analysis if for. The numbers say very little about the actual appearance of a particular individual diamond. I'll again make the point that many AGS 0 diamonds aren't quite what they are seem. The AGS 0 cut parameters are wide. If you want more numbers on a stone, get a Sarin report.

To reiterate my earlier post, it ain't the lab that makes the diamond.

 

[Caratz]

Here's my two cents:

If you are a cutter and you do a good job on a stone (as verified by a Sarin report), you have a greater incentive to send the stone to AGS for grading -- rather than GIA -- because AGS will give you an "ideal" cut rating. That helps you sell the stone at a better premium.

If you do a lousy job on the cut to maximize weight retention, you have a greater incentive to send the stone to GIA, as GIA will not call attention to the poor cut in the grading report.

That's why I think most of the AGS stones out there have better cuts and sell for higher prices. If they had a lousy cut, the cutter would send it to GIA instead.