shape
carat
color
clarity

AGS Triple 0 clarifications

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

reigndeerz

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
43
Hi all!
35.gif


I am new to PS, have been lurking a little over the past few weeks as I prepare to take the plunge for a proposal ring, but there are some queries that I have, pertaining to how a diamond is classified as an AGS000 rock.

Looking at some of the AGS reports made available by WF and JA for the AGS 0 cuts in the region of 0.4-0.7 carat range, I noticed that it is easy to determine the AGS000 cuts from the WF reports, as the subsections of Light Performance, Symmetry and Polish are clearly stated.

However, when it came to AGS reports made avaliable by JA, only the cut grading was displayed, with no subsection to specify the grades of the individual components.

The two AGS reports I referred to are:
WF - http://www.whiteflash.com/pimg/certificates/ci_AGS-1040371490055.jpg
JA - http://www.jamesallen.com/certs/B206-812CER.JPG

My questions are these...how then do I know whether or not the latter diamond is a AGS000? Why are there 2 different formats for the AGS report even though they are both recent reports? Is one report format ''superior'' to the other?

Thank you for taking the time to entertain this poor newbie in diamond seeking!
25.gif
 
Date: 10/27/2009 4:54:50 AM
Author:reigndeerz
Hi all!
35.gif


I am new to PS, have been lurking a little over the past few weeks as I prepare to take the plunge for a proposal ring, but there are some queries that I have, pertaining to how a diamond is classified as an AGS000 rock.

Looking at some of the AGS reports made available by WF and JA for the AGS 0 cuts in the region of 0.4-0.7 carat range, I noticed that it is easy to determine the AGS000 cuts from the WF reports, as the subsections of Light Performance, Symmetry and Polish are clearly stated.

However, when it came to AGS reports made avaliable by JA, only the cut grading was displayed, with no subsection to specify the grades of the individual components.

The two AGS reports I referred to are:
WF - http://www.whiteflash.com/pimg/certificates/ci_AGS-1040371490055.jpg
JA - http://www.jamesallen.com/certs/B206-812CER.JPG

My questions are these...how then do I know whether or not the latter diamond is a AGS000? Why are there 2 different formats for the AGS report even though they are both recent reports? Is one report format 'superior' to the other?

Thank you for taking the time to entertain this poor newbie in diamond seeking!
25.gif
Hi reign

This is because often this info on the flap doesn't scan, the info you ask about is on a flap on the right hand side of the report. You can ask JA about this and ask them to email you that info from the report if there is a diamond you are interested in.

Also the WF report is the new style AGS0 platinum diamond quality document which will be replacing the older style DQD as seen on the JA link.
 
Ya, the JA stone is the old format. The cut grade will be the worst score of light performance, polish and symm grade.
 
Date: 10/27/2009 5:03:00 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 10/27/2009 4:54:50 AM
Author:reigndeerz
Hi all!
35.gif


I am new to PS, have been lurking a little over the past few weeks as I prepare to take the plunge for a proposal ring, but there are some queries that I have, pertaining to how a diamond is classified as an AGS000 rock.

Looking at some of the AGS reports made available by WF and JA for the AGS 0 cuts in the region of 0.4-0.7 carat range, I noticed that it is easy to determine the AGS000 cuts from the WF reports, as the subsections of Light Performance, Symmetry and Polish are clearly stated.

However, when it came to AGS reports made avaliable by JA, only the cut grading was displayed, with no subsection to specify the grades of the individual components.

The two AGS reports I referred to are:
WF - http://www.whiteflash.com/pimg/certificates/ci_AGS-1040371490055.jpg
JA - http://www.jamesallen.com/certs/B206-812CER.JPG

My questions are these...how then do I know whether or not the latter diamond is a AGS000? Why are there 2 different formats for the AGS report even though they are both recent reports? Is one report format ''superior'' to the other?

Thank you for taking the time to entertain this poor newbie in diamond seeking!
25.gif
Hi reign

This is because often this info on the flap doesn''t scan, the info you ask about is on a flap on the right hand side of the report. You can ask JA about this and ask them to email you that info from the report if there is a diamond you are interested in.

Also the WF report is the new style AGS0 platinum diamond quality document which will be replacing the older style DQD as seen on the JA link.
Correct me if I''m wrong, essentially both reports are the same, except that in the case of the JA report, it''s a slightly older version of the report, but the 3 characteristics i''m looking for is in fact present, just not scanned in by JA in this instance. Yes?

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer!
1.gif
 
Date: 10/27/2009 5:10:08 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
Ya, the JA stone is the old format. The cut grade will be the worst score of light performance, polish and symm grade.
So does it necessarily mean that if the cut grade is shown as 0, it can be termed as an AGS000 diamond?
 
Depends on your definition. The original AGS definition of a AGS000 is ideal cut, D IF stone.

Now, people are starting to use the term AGS000 for ideal light performance, polish and symm.
 
Date: 10/27/2009 5:11:52 AM
Author: reigndeerz

Date: 10/27/2009 5:03:00 AM
Author: Lorelei


Date: 10/27/2009 4:54:50 AM
Author:reigndeerz
Hi all!
35.gif


I am new to PS, have been lurking a little over the past few weeks as I prepare to take the plunge for a proposal ring, but there are some queries that I have, pertaining to how a diamond is classified as an AGS000 rock.

Looking at some of the AGS reports made available by WF and JA for the AGS 0 cuts in the region of 0.4-0.7 carat range, I noticed that it is easy to determine the AGS000 cuts from the WF reports, as the subsections of Light Performance, Symmetry and Polish are clearly stated.

However, when it came to AGS reports made avaliable by JA, only the cut grading was displayed, with no subsection to specify the grades of the individual components.

The two AGS reports I referred to are:
WF - http://www.whiteflash.com/pimg/certificates/ci_AGS-1040371490055.jpg
JA - http://www.jamesallen.com/certs/B206-812CER.JPG

My questions are these...how then do I know whether or not the latter diamond is a AGS000? Why are there 2 different formats for the AGS report even though they are both recent reports? Is one report format ''superior'' to the other?

Thank you for taking the time to entertain this poor newbie in diamond seeking!
25.gif
Hi reign

This is because often this info on the flap doesn''t scan, the info you ask about is on a flap on the right hand side of the report. You can ask JA about this and ask them to email you that info from the report if there is a diamond you are interested in.

Also the WF report is the new style AGS0 platinum diamond quality document which will be replacing the older style DQD as seen on the JA link.
Correct me if I''m wrong, essentially both reports are the same, except that in the case of the JA report, it''s a slightly older version of the report, but the 3 characteristics i''m looking for is in fact present, just not scanned in by JA in this instance. Yes?

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer!
1.gif
You got it, yes.
 
Date: 10/27/2009 5:18:52 AM
Author: reigndeerz


Date: 10/27/2009 5:10:08 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
Ya, the JA stone is the old format. The cut grade will be the worst score of light performance, polish and symm grade.
So does it necessarily mean that if the cut grade is shown as 0, it can be termed as an AGS000 diamond?
The terms are used interchangeably now, the true definition of an AGS000 is a diamond of D colour, IF clarity and Ideal Cut, however you normally see the term AGS0 applied to any diamond of any colour and clarity that gets the 0 cut grade, sometimes these too are called AGS000 although the use of this term isn't strictly correct.
 
Since 2005, AGSL will only assign a cut grade of AGS-0 Ideal on a DQD (the report you’ve got) if it also gets a ‘0’ in all 3 grades of Light Performance, Symmetry and Polish.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
 
Very much wiser now! Thank you to those who responded!
1.gif
 
Hi
I''m also new to the forum.
My questions are :-
1) I''ve seen AGS Labs proportion charts which classify cut candidates based on table/crown angle/pav angle combinations. So are these just guides - as Ive seen many AGS(0) diamonds which seem to fall in Ex as opposed to Ideal on the charts (eg 57table/35ca/41pa
2) A lot of websites suggest polish/symmetry are quite minor determinants of cut, and yet both GIA and especially AGS seem to assign significance to them. What are views of experts on this forum??
thx
Bob
 
1) Partly, depends on the report. If it is the diamond quality report/gold report, the cut grade is based on average proportion, similar to GIA cut grading. If it is with the diamond quality document/platinum report, the cut grade is performance based on ray tracing computer simulation of the full 3D dimensions of the stone.

2) Ya, minor in the overall performance of the stone, but that''s how they grade it and it will command a premium.
 
Thanks for the explanation - so what detrmines whether it gets the gold or platinum report - up to the personrequesting the AGS grading? If so he could ask for both and get an AGS(0) on 1 report and an AGS(1) on the other - how is Joe average consumer to cope with that inconsistency - surely a diamond grade from 1 lab should have 1 cut grade??.
 
Yes, up to the vendor requesting the report. The DQD/Pt report is the more expensive report but the stone will also be able to sell at a higher price. I think usually if the stone fails to get the AGS0 grade on the DQD/Pt report, the vendor will ask AGS to give them the DQR/Gold report instead, but probably getting the ideal cut grade. Only 1 report will be given.
 
It seems to me that the vendor will not ask/pay for a platinum report unless they are confident that it will come out as AGS(0), and what gives that confidence?? I guesss knowing that it''s got ideal proportions per the AGS proportion charts??
However on a trawl through JA true hearts recently, looking specifically at 57 table. I found 20% had at 35/41 ca/pa combo and a further 12-15% had a 34.5/41.2 or 35/41.2 combo - with even 3 35.5/41.2 combos.
My point is that all of these miss the ideal on AGS proportion tables and yet if I assume JA truehearts are all AGS(o) then they must all have the platinum cert.
It so happens that these only just miss the ideal on AGS proportion tables, but it begs the question are there lots more diamonds/combos out there that miss the ideal per proportion tables(Gold doc) but would meet the platinum ideal if the vendor was willing to ignore the proportion evidence and pay for platinum. Obviously one would be less likely to pay for this the greater the miss on a proportion basis!!
So in fact could it be that a large no of GIA ex cuts that miss AGS(0) based on proportions in fact woud meet AGS(0) on the platinum???
Please explain how my argument might be fallacious! ( I''m new to the world of diamonds) - I expect comments about leakage and idealscopes etc, but I undestand AGS use proprietary sootware / hardware for the platinum grading. Do we know the correlation between AGS measuring tools and other tools?
 
2D grading system vs a 3D grading system.

The proportion system is based on 2D average numbers, that could be within AGS0 parameter, but some main facet pairs could be leaky but due to the averaging it does not show up in the 2D grading system but will be detected in the 3D grading system. 3D system also takes into account of facet alignment and interactions of the minor facets, the upper and lower half and star facets, if they work well together there will be not leakage. These accounts for all those high pavilion angle stones that supposedly should get a lower cut grade but did not.
 
Ah! I see - but there still seems some wriggle room for my argument. Without going into normal distributions and standard deviations etc., some 35% of, an admittedly relatively small, JA sample meet the 3d AGS(0) but not the 2d.
So how many stones/combos are there that fall further away from the 2d ideal but would still meet the 3d ideal????-----
 
That is assuming the facets complement each other. You do not know that and cannot know that based on just the average numbers stated on the report. A full sarin scan or just use an ASET scope to look at the stone, the AGS0 grading system is developed with the ASET.
 
That''s precisely my point. How many 2d non ideals would in fact be ideal if they went through 3d grading??
 
Probably very few if the cutters know what the hell they are doing, because they most probably are send to get a 3D AGS0 grade in the first place and fail to get it. Why would they take a loss by selling the stone at a lower premium due to the grading report.
 
Sorry - missed the 2nd half of your comment. So I presume lots of GIA ex steep/deeps have been put through an aset scope?
Leaves my argument dead in the water I guess??
 
Date: 10/30/2009 4:09:39 AM
Author: BobR
Sorry - missed the 2nd half of your comment. So I presume lots of GIA ex steep/deeps have been put through an aset scope?

Leaves my argument dead in the water I guess??

Grading between 2 labs will be different, cutters send them to different labs based on familiarity with the lab and speed of turn around time also, GIA being faster I believe.
 
Date: 10/29/2009 7:13:06 PM
Author: BobR
Hi
I'm also new to the forum.
My questions are :-
1) I've seen AGS Labs proportion charts which classify cut candidates based on table/crown angle/pav angle combinations. So are these just guides - as Ive seen many AGS(0) diamonds which seem to fall in Ex as opposed to Ideal on the charts (eg 57table/35ca/41pa
2) A lot of websites suggest polish/symmetry are quite minor determinants of cut, and yet both GIA and especially AGS seem to assign significance to them. What are views of experts on this forum??
thx
Bob
Welcome Bob!

Please feel free to start a new thread for any questions you might have, we will be pleased to answer there - it is a bit easier rather than using another poster's thread when they might prefer to keep any posts specific to their questions.
1.gif
Thanks!
 
OK
Thanks - will do!!
Bobi
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top