AGS Triple Zero & Gia Ideal Cut Ranges Shrinking in the Future?

[soontomarry2]

I may be wrong, but I imagine the cut range that qualifies as AGS triple zero and GIA ideal has become smaller over the years.

In the future, is there a high likelyhood that the ideal cut range will shrink again/more? Could it be that some of us with diamonds that qualifiy as ideal cut today will no longer qualify as such in the future?

 

[John P]

Date: 6/30/2010 6:06:00 PM
Author:soontomarry2

I may be wrong, but I imagine the cut range that qualifies as AGS triple zero and GIA ideal has become smaller over the years.

There's no such thing as GIA Ideal.

The AGS Ideal grade introduced in 1996 (proportions based) was a simple 2D system and did become smaller later.
The AGS Ideal grade introduced in 2005 (light-performance based) is a diamond-specific 3D metric. It allows for more table sizes but is narrower than their prior metrics.
The GIA EX grade introduced in 2006 (proportions-based) is an involved 2D system. It is wider than the AGS 2005 performance metric but far better than what GIA offered publicly before (no cut grade).

In the future, is there a high likelyhood that the ideal cut range will shrink again/more? Could it be that some of us with diamonds that qualifiy as ideal cut today will no longer qualify as such in the future?

Possible. But history shows that manufacturers tend to prefer cut metrics that are easy to understand and allow a wider range to earn the top grade. The current GIA system is very popular because the "Triple EX" cut grade is very well regarded - and better-known than AGS Ideal in the mainstream - yet easier to achieve.

 

[kenny]

I would LOVE to see GIA and AGS engage in some healthy competition for the title of the lab with the highest standards.

Cut quality would go up.

Those inferior labs that lie about grades might even jump on the bandwagon and clean their act up.

 

[John P]

Date: 6/30/2010 6:21:56 PM
Author: kenny
I would LOVE to see GIA and AGS engage in some healthy competition for the title of the lab with the highest standards.

Cut quality would go up.

Those inferior labs that lie about grades might even jump on the bandwagon and clean their act up.

That would be Nirvana.

In the USA 10 out of 10 jewelers will tell consumers GIA is the world's most reputable report. It's a unanimous message.
7 in 10 carry a softer lab as well as GIA and will admit up-front that the softer lab is "somewhat" (sic) behind GIA standards.
2 in 10 will try to position the softer lab as GIA-equivalent.

None of them will mention AGS, or if they do the information can be less than complete or fault-finding - since it doesn't serve their purpose to promote what they don't sell.

Only 1 in 10 will discuss AGS favorably - typically if they have access to AGS-graded diamonds. Of those, few salespeople know the technical differences between the respective cut grades... To them Any EX is equivalent to any Ideal. Even the world's most popular internet seller maintains this in their educational material.

Summary: 10 of 10 jewelers send the message that GIA EX is king. 9 of 10 won't bring up AGS and live safe in the knowledge that the guys across the street and down the block will be sending the same non-message.

 

[Karl_K]

GIA tends to get stuck in a rut so I don''t see them moving in the next 10+ years from EX as it is now.

AGS to please some cutters/trade has came out with gold ideal for rounds which is less strict than platinum ideal so I don''t see them getting tighter either with rounds anytime soon.
If they do anything it may be grading optical symmetry(h&a) if there is enough demand but honestly I think that is a very long shot.

I don''t see AGS moving anywhere with the princess cut grade they hit a pretty good target but it is outside many cutters comfort zone so it will remain a very small part of the market.

The cut grades for the other shapes are irrelevant as they are neither accepted nor used.
Until they find a way to grade patterns the step cut grades will stay unaccepted and irrelevant.

 

[Yimmers]

Date: 6/30/2010 6:59:25 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 6/30/2010 6:21:56 PM

Author: kenny

I would LOVE to see GIA and AGS engage in some healthy competition for the title of the lab with the highest standards.


Cut quality would go up.


Those inferior labs that lie about grades might even jump on the bandwagon and clean their act up.

That would be Nirvana.


In the USA 10 out of 10 jewelers will tell consumers GIA is the world''s most reputable report. It''s a unanimous message.

7 in 10 carry a softer lab as well as GIA and will admit up-front that the softer lab is ''somewhat'' (sic) behind GIA standards.

2 in 10 will try to position the softer lab as GIA-equivalent.


None of them will mention AGS, or if they do the information can be less than complete or fault-finding - since it doesn''t serve their purpose to promote what they don''t sell.


Only 1 in 10 will discuss AGS favorably - typically if they have access to AGS-graded diamonds. Of those, few salespeople know the technical differences between the respective cut grades... To them Any EX is equivalent to any Ideal. Even the world''s most popular internet seller maintains this in their educational material.


Summary: 10 of 10 jewelers send the message that GIA EX is king. 9 of 10 won''t bring up AGS and live safe in the knowledge that the guys across the street and down the block will be sending the same non-message.

This pretty much sums up my experience at a local jewelery store recently. Since they didn''t carry AGS, they played it off as slightly a step down from GIA, although they said IGI and EGL were softer. Said don''t even consider a J color. He also told us that all GIA triple ex are ideal cut; I had to tell my friend that was bull* because my diamond was a GIA triple ex, and just under ideal. Thing is, she was plenty happy with my diamond, and I''m sure for a lot of people out there, that is perfectly fine. But, now that I have the PS knowledge, I am uber picky and want a future upgrade to be an ideal cut, "not just under an ideal cut."

Look at what you''ve done, making me expect the best, lol.

 

[soontomarry2]

Date: 6/30/2010 6:21:01 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 6/30/2010 6:06:00 PM

Author:soontomarry2


I may be wrong, but I imagine the cut range that qualifies as AGS triple zero and GIA ideal has become smaller over the years.

There''s no such thing as GIA Ideal.


The AGS Ideal grade introduced in 1996 (proportions based) was a simple 2D system and did become smaller later.

The AGS Ideal grade introduced in 2005 (light-performance based) is a diamond-specific 3D metric. It allows for more table sizes but is narrower than their prior metrics.

The GIA EX grade introduced in 2006 (proportions-based) is an involved 2D system. It is wider than the AGS 2005 performance metric but far better than what GIA offered publicly before (no cut grade).

In the future, is there a high likelyhood that the ideal cut range will shrink again/more? Could it be that some of us with diamonds that qualifiy as ideal cut today will no longer qualify as such in the future?

Possible. But history shows that manufacturers tend to prefer cut metrics that are easy to understand and allow a wider range to earn the top grade. The current GIA system is very popular because the ''Triple EX'' cut grade is very well regarded - and better-known than AGS Ideal in the mainstream - yet easier to achieve.

John - if only your knowledge set could be completely published for me to absorb......

Are there any online resources that discuss the differences between proportions-based and light-based grading systems? Are light-based grading systems a type of ray-tracing technique for modeling the diamonds performance in areas such as light-leakage, light return, etc.? I am fairly familiar with one form of ray-tracing due to previous work in Architecture. Maybe there are similar?

You mention that the cut metrics of GIA are easier to understand than those of AGS. Why is this so? If I Diamond falls within certain preset values, is it guaranteed to receive the top rating in either or both rating systems?

Karl_K-
( I haven''t figured out how to double quote yet

)

We will soon be seeing gold ideal and platinum ideal designations appearing on AGS certificates? Does GIA only offer certification of round cut diamonds, while AGS offers both round and princess? Or is it that certifications for these stones are the only ones adopted as a standard industry wide and there is no current accepted standard for other shapes?

 

[John P]

Date: 6/30/2010 8:35:23 PM
Author: Yimmers

Look at what you''ve done, making me expect the best, lol.

(rubbing hands together)
Mwa ha ha.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 6/30/2010 8:35:50 PM
Author: soontomarry2

You mention that the cut metrics of GIA are easier to understand than those of AGS. Why is this so? If I Diamond falls within certain preset values, is it guaranteed to receive the top rating in either or both rating systems?


Karl_K-

( I haven't figured out how to double quote yet

)


We will soon be seeing gold ideal and platinum ideal designations appearing on AGS certificates? Does GIA only offer certification of round cut diamonds, while AGS offers both round and princess? Or is it that certifications for these stones are the only ones adopted as a standard industry wide and there is no current accepted standard for other shapes?

I am going to answer one part you asked Sir John,
GIA has more leeway if you miss you can still get EX and GIA allows EX/VG polish in EX cut grade.
The AGS platinum is based on a 3d scan every facet is taken into account.
AGS gold and GIA EX only the averages are used and with GIA they are rounded.
The GIA EX target is huge compared to the AGS0 Plat target by a factor of 3-5 once you take into account averaging and rounding and being bigger to start with.

The AGS gold ideal is available now, if it hits plat ideal it makes sense to get it if it don't then getting GIA EX probably makes more sense than AGS gold even if it hits gold ideal.
GIA grades all diamonds but only has a cut grade for rounds.
AGS has a Plat cut grade for rounds and princess that is used and accepted.
AGS also has a cut grade for emerald and square emerald cuts that has been near totally rejected with good reason.

 

[John P]

Date: 6/30/2010 8:35:50 PM
Author: soontomarry2

John - if only your knowledge set could be completely published for me to absorb......

I do childrens' parties. Diamond data is fun to deliver with a clown nose on. (seriously though, thanks)

Are there any online resources that discuss the differences between proportions-based and light-based grading systems? Are light-based grading systems a type of ray-tracing technique for modeling the diamonds performance in areas such as light-leakage, light return, etc.? I am fairly familiar with one form of ray-tracing due to previous work in Architecture. Maybe there are similar?

GIA's Facetware here and enter the measurements for a diamond to find out what its GIA cut grade will be. If your numbers are accurate it's a pretty good bet that will be the cut grade, pending some onsite evaluations like brillianteering. It's like a sophisticated version of the HCA, with results based on GIA's human observational studies over a period of years. Human graders still assign finish grades of course.

The AGS performance-based system takes a 3D scan of the diamond and, using software (like architecture software), puts appx 40K rays of light through the crown. Values are calculated for brightness, dispersion, contrast and leakage according to the diamond's angular spectrum, which can be read-about in this scientific review.This is done for the diamond at different distances and through a range of tilt. With all facets are evaluated together in 3D, this metric is diamond-specific whereas the more basic 2D proportions evaluation is general.

Lab summaries here:
http://www.gia.edu/diamondcut/06_estimating_a_cut_grade.html
http://www.americangemsociety.org/theperformancebasedc.htm

Some of our esteemed PS sellers go into detail about the different systems on their websites. Trade members can't link but we have consumer enthusiasts here who can link-to some of the tutorials.

You mention that the cut metrics of GIA are easier to understand than those of AGS. Why is this so? If I Diamond falls within certain preset values, is it guaranteed to receive the top rating in either or both rating systems?

If I cut a diamond with 58 table, 41.0 avg PA, 35.0 avg CA and normal minor facets I know it's getting GIA EX before I ever send it to the lab - I can see that on the GIA charts. But AGS only issues cut guidelines to manufacturers. The actual diamond could go to AGSL and suffer in the 3D evaluation due to cutting inconsistencies, not-earning the grade the manufacturer hoped-for according to the 2D average measurements printed on the guidelines (that is why AGSL calls them guidelines).

We will soon be seeing gold ideal and platinum ideal designations appearing on AGS certificates? Does GIA only offer certification of round cut diamonds, while AGS offers both round and princess? Or is it that certifications for these stones are the only ones adopted as a standard industry wide and there is no current accepted standard for other shapes?

They appear now -Platinum (also called DQD) and Gold (also called DQR).

GIA grades cut for round diamonds only right now. That is a limitation of any 2D/general proportions system: There is so much variability in the fancy shapes (multiple angles on pavilion/crown versus one main angle on top & bottom for round brilliant) that a method for evaluating the total diamond is required. That's why the AGS metric can operate for fancies, through "cracking the code" is harder because with more variability come even more taste factors. Only their princess metric has been successful apart from rounds - and marginally so since manufacturers find it more difficult to cut to those standards: "Why cut a princess according to these pesky cut standards when we can cut anything we please and not be held to a cut-grade at other labs?"

Last note: Neither GIA or AGS call their grading reports "certificates" (with the exception of the AGS DQC). This is a term many tradespeople use, as well as other labs, but it's interesting that these major labs respect the subjective nature of grading. In short, they are not "certifying" anything.

 

[John P]

Date: 6/30/2010 10:06:27 PM
Author: Karl_K

I am going to answer one part you asked Sir John,
GIA has more leeway if you miss you can still get EX and GIA allows EX/VG polish in EX cut grade.
The AGS platinum is based on a 3d scan every facet is taken into account.
AGS gold and GIA EX only the averages are used and with GIA they are rounded.
The GIA EX target is huge compared to the AGS0 Plat target by a factor of 3-5 once you take into account averaging and rounding and being bigger to start with.

The AGS gold ideal is available now, if it hits plat ideal it makes sense to get it if it don't then getting GIA EX probably makes more sense than AGS gold even if it hits gold ideal.

[JP: Agreed. AGS is hoping the trade-weight of the term 'ideal' will attract users.
FWIW, I've placed a 'somebody else's problem' field around AGS Gold (- credit to Douglas Adams) ]

GIA grades all diamonds but only has a cut grade for rounds.
AGS has a Plat cut grade for rounds and princess that is used and accepted.
AGS also has a cut grade for emerald and square emerald cuts that has been near totally rejected with good reason.

If you mashed me and Karl together you'd get medium-length answers.

 

[Karl_K]

taking this one step back towards the ground.

It is not the cutter or the market or the lab that ultimately determines how the rough will be cut.
It is the rough itself and the rough market.
Lets take an imaginary lot of rough.
Every one will cut 1ct RB of one kind or another so if you want to buy it that is what the sale price will be based on.
These days(unless you are a siteholder) you are likely to be bidding against others who are calculating it at 1ct yield.
Lets say that 10 of those will yield .98 cut to near tolk/ags0.

You have 5 options:
1: Bid on them as if those 10 are .9x potential and not get any rough
2: buy 100 and sell 10 cut 90
3: cut the 90 to near tolk/ags0 cut the other 10 steep deep gia ex to hit 1ct.
4: cut all 100 gia EX on the steep deep side ending up over 1ct for each forgetting ags0
5: buy 100 at 1ct expected yield, cut 10 at .98 and 90 at 1ct and go out of business next week because you arent making any money.
Which would you do?

 

[John P]

Date: 7/1/2010 12:03:33 AM
Author: Karl_K

You have 5 options:
1: Bid on them as if those 10 are .9x potential and not get any rough
2: buy 100 and sell 10 cut 90
3: cut the 90 to near tolk/ags0 cut the other 10 steep deep gia ex to hit 1ct.
4: cut all 100 gia EX on the steep deep side ending up over 1ct for each forgetting ags0
5: buy 100 at 1ct expected yield, cut 10 at .98 and 90 at 1ct and go out of business next week because you arent making any money.
Which would you do?

6. Buy 100 at 1ct expected yield, cut 10 to your boutique standards, resell the 90 as one-ofs to anxious manufacturers who gladly pay break-even (or perhaps half-a-point?) to produce their 1ct steep/deeps - and maintain your own small, principled production.

 

[soontomarry2]

This conversation is absolutely fascinating!

Date: 7/1/2010 1:24:43 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/1/2010 12:03:33 AM
Author: Karl_K

You have 5 options:
1: Bid on them as if those 10 are .9x potential and not get any rough
2: buy 100 and sell 10 cut 90
3: cut the 90 to near tolk/ags0 cut the other 10 steep deep gia ex to hit 1ct.
4: cut all 100 gia EX on the steep deep side ending up over 1ct for each forgetting ags0
5: buy 100 at 1ct expected yield, cut 10 at .98 and 90 at 1ct and go out of business next week because you arent making any money.
Which would you do?

6. Buy 100 at 1ct expected yield, cut 10 to your boutique standards, resell the 90 as one-ofs to anxious manufacturers who gladly pay break-even (or perhaps half-a-point?) to produce their 1ct steep/deeps - and maintain your own small, principled production.

What exactly do you mean by "perhaps half-a-point?". It makes sense that if the boutique is profitably cutting to special standards then they would be perfectly happy breaking even on the remainder of the lot.

Can I ask if this is the correct process for a lot of rough becoming diamonds for sale?

1. An online boutique, (be it Whiteflash, BGD, GOG, NiceICE, Crafted by Infinity, etc.) goes to some sort of market or exchange to buy diamond rough.
2. The boutique examines different lots containing multiple pieces of rough.
3. The boutique estimates what size diamonds and with what characteristics can be ceated from different lots of rough.
4. The boutique bids against other boutiques for the lot containing many small pieces of rough.
5. The winning boutique takes the lot back to their shop for cutting. Based on profitability and maintaining the boutique’s brand image, they will cut the rough pieces into a series of diamond that match one of the 6 different options that you, Karl K and John have laid out.

Is this process correct? Have I left anything out?

It would seem that the boutique has a lot of control over the end product. For instance, I know the AGS ideal cut light-based guidelines seem to suggest a fairly certain range of values centered on Tolk that would be graded as ideal (assuming of course that the diamonds pass the 3D scan). I also know that it is typically more profitable to cut a steeper and deeper diamond than a shallower one because less rough is wasted and it is easier to hit a target carat weight. Given these two facts, it seems to make sense why many of the branded H&A stones coming from online boutiques tend to be in the steeper and deeper range of AGS ideal cut i.e., you see a lot more stones with crown and pavilion angles of 34.8/40.8 or 34.9/40.9 as opposed to those with angles around the range of 34.4/40.7 or 34.3/40.6. Is this an accurate assumption?

John – I look forward to reading and rereading all the links you have posted and coming back with even more questions!

 

[MidwestDiamondHunter]

So as far as AGS platinum vs. gold cert goes, is that plat/gold have any relevance to the quality of diamond? Or is it just a fancier document???

 

[yssie]

Date: 7/1/2010 3:35:49 PM
Author: MidwestDiamondHunter
So as far as AGS platinum vs. gold cert goes, is that plat/gold have any relevance to the quality of diamond? Or is it just a fancier document???

Plat.(dqd) requires excellent 3Dray-tracing software performance, it is stone-dependent and so a cutter cannot guarantee that the stone will meet all AGS0 requirements even with "cherry numbers". The ideal grade requires ideal pol/sym. dqr (gold) is proportions-based like GIA, so a cutter can guess what he's getting into, and the ideal grade permits ex pol/sym, so depending on which AGS report type you have the top grade has different requirements and specifications.
Plat. is a more 'prestigious' report, if you will.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/1/2010 2:22:58 PM
Author: soontomarry2
This conversation is absolutely fascinating!

What exactly do you mean by 'perhaps half-a-point?'. It makes sense that if the boutique is profitably cutting to special standards then they would be perfectly happy breaking even on the remainder of the lot.

When I said half-a-point I meant potentially making a half-percent profit...but I'm oversimplifying:

At a tender we must estimate the finished weight, color and clarity for all rough crystals in the parcel in order to arrive at a competitive bid. For the boutique I described (ours) we must even know the configurations used by other manufacturers who might be interested in buying the rough in the parcel which doesn't meet our brand requirements. Presuming we win the bid that rough comes to our offices and now the rubber meets the road. We must hope we were correct in all of our estimations - not only finished weight, color & clarity for the crystals suitable for our brand, but also in the estimates of the crystals we cannot use, and the correlating estimates of what others will pay for them... So our final resales could eventually be break-even, slightly profitable or even a loss.

In our favor is the fact that we're unusual. Not everyone is willing to sell crystals one-of, and the crystals which will finish as shapes and makes outside our brand can be extremely interesting for others.

1. An online boutique, (be it Whiteflash, BGD, GOG, NiceICE, Crafted by Infinity, etc.) goes to some sort of market or exchange to buy diamond rough.

I didn't intend to paint others with a broad brush. Infinity is the only boutique using the model I described. The others are actively involved in selection & standards for their brands, but the rough buying and cutting is done by sightholders who have a wide range of production beyond fine makes. In the case of GOG and NiceIce you have Jonathan W and Todd G selecting from an exclusive list of cutters and/or suppliers with whom they work closely.

2. The boutique examines different lots containing multiple pieces of rough.
3. The boutique estimates what size diamonds and with what characteristics can be ceated from different lots of rough.
4. The boutique bids against other boutiques for the lot containing many small pieces of rough.
5. The winning boutique takes the lot back to their shop for cutting. Based on profitability and maintaining the boutique’s brand image, they will cut the rough pieces into a series of diamond that match one of the 6 different options that you, Karl K and John have laid out.

Is this process correct? Have I left anything out?

#4: There could possibly be 15 or 50 other companies involved, and many will have a wide enough production to use the entire parcel.
#5: Yes but for our purposes, if we win the parcel, we're limited to the 6th option I posted above.

It would seem that the boutique has a lot of control over the end product. For instance, I know the AGS ideal cut light-based guidelines seem to suggest a fairly certain range of values centered on Tolk that would be graded as ideal (assuming of course that the diamonds pass the 3D scan). I also know that it is typically more profitable to cut a steeper and deeper diamond than a shallower one because less rough is wasted and it is easier to hit a target carat weight. Given these two facts, it seems to make sense why many of the branded H&A stones coming from online boutiques tend to be in the steeper and deeper range of AGS ideal cut i.e., you see a lot more stones with crown and pavilion angles of 34.8/40.8 or 34.9/40.9 as opposed to those with angles around the range of 34.4/40.7 or 34.3/40.6. Is this an accurate assumption?

To answer yes or no would be oversimplifying again, but your reasoning is not inaccurate - and in the macro it explains the abundance of deeper RB cofigurations on the market vs shallow.

John – I look forward to reading and rereading all the links you have posted and coming back with even more questions!

Happy to contribute. While the information is not lab/grading oriented I imagine understanding some particulars about the upstream process is helpful for understanding "why" we arrive at the end-results downstream. Thanks for the thoughtful questions.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 7/1/2010 3:56:54 PM
Author: yssie

Date: 7/1/2010 3:35:49 PM

Author: MidwestDiamondHunter

So as far as AGS platinum vs. gold cert goes, is that plat/gold have any relevance to the quality of diamond? Or is it just a fancier document???

Plat.(dqd) requires excellent 3Dray-tracing software performance, it is stone-dependent and so a cutter cannot guarantee that the stone will meet all AGS0 requirements even with ''cherry numbers''. The ideal grade requires ideal pol/sym. dqr (gold) is proportions-based like GIA, so a cutter can guess what he''s getting into, and the ideal grade permits ex pol/sym, so depending on which AGS report type you have the top grade has different requirements and specifications.

Plat. is a more ''prestigious'' report, if you will.

good job

I would add that the plat grade is more accurate as there are far fewer ways to cheat.

 

[Rhino]

Great posts John & Karl.

If optical symmetry grading is ever introduced yes ... many current ideal/ex's will not make the top grade but this is highly unlikely as it would mean less business for the lab that introduces it.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

First get a consensus amongst PSers that "ideal" optical symmetry (indepedant of complimentary CA/PA) results in an appreciably better looking round or fancy as seen in real life as surveyed by consumers. Then convince the labs and trade in general of the appreciable differences between ideal and near ideal, and THEN the labs (like AGS and GIA) may start to consider grading this.

I''m not holding by breath until this happens.

I wonder what companies or groups encouraged HRD to use strict grading of hearts and arrows in their reports?

 

[yssie]

Date: 7/2/2010 1:22:24 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover
First get a consensus amongst PSers that 'ideal' optical symmetry (indepedant of complimentary CA/PA) results in an appreciably better looking round or fancy as seen in real life as surveyed by consumers. Then convince the labs and trade in general of the appreciable differences between ideal and near ideal, and THEN the labs (like AGS and GIA) may start to consider grading this.

I'm not holding by breath until this happens.

I wonder what companies or groups encouraged HRD to use strict grading of hearts and arrows in their reports?

I'll dissent to that

 

[Kentz]

I just chance upon this article.

http://www.truthaboutdiamonds.com/truth-about/diamond-certificates-gia-ags-igi-hrd-egl/ags/

Is what the author saying a load of bull**** or is there some truth in it?

Coz what the people in here is saying seems to be the complete opposite of what the article suggest.

 

[yssie]

Oh, dear. What a lot of rot.

AGS0s usually command a slight premium. Proportions charts are available to the public: GIA and AGSL

 

[John P]

Date: 7/2/2010 3:51:52 AM
Author: Kentz

http://www.truthaboutdiamonds.com/truth-about/diamond-certificates-gia-ags-igi-hrd-egl/ags/
Is what the author saying a load of bull**** or is there some truth in it?

Some, yes. But there are six misstatements in the first two paragraphs. Whether that's by design or misunderstanding I can't say. In my travels I've encountered professionals who are in the habit of telling half-truths, simply because they don't know or have not researched the facts.

As described previously:

Date: 6/30/2010 6:59:25 PM
Author: John Pollard

In the USA 10 out of 10 jewelers will tell consumers GIA is the world's most reputable report. It's a unanimous message.
7 in 10 carry a softer lab as well as GIA and will admit up-front that the softer lab is 'somewhat' (sic) behind GIA standards.
2 in 10 will try to position the softer lab as GIA-equivalent.

None of them will mention AGS, or if they do the information can be less than complete or fault-finding - since it doesn't serve their purpose to promote what they don't sell.

Only 1 in 10 will discuss AGS favorably - typically if they have access to AGS-graded diamonds. Of those, few salespeople know the technical differences between the respective cut grades... To them Any EX is equivalent to any Ideal...

A bit of research will reveal that this is not the case.

 

[Kentz]

yeah John, I agree with you and really like your article in this thread, read through them and many articles on AGS and GIA, then finding a complete different "truth" from this guy.

My beef is with the author''s web url, it seems to suggest that all other diamonds sites are spewing rubbish and what he posted there is the holy blingy bible...
and though it seems that there are some followers there, hope they got other alternatives sources of information else they might miss out on some really nice AGS stones.

 

[soontomarry2]

Re:

In our favor is the fact that we're unusual. Not everyone is willing to sell crystals one-of, and the crystals which will finish as shapes and makes outside our brand can be extremely interesting for others.

John, what do you mean by "crystals one-of"? Are these just full cut and polished diamonds that you sell individually, as opposed to a parcel or lot that don't meet your brand standards?

I don’t see AGS moving anywhere with the princess cut grade they hit a pretty good target but it is outside many cutters comfort zone so it will remain a very small part of the market.

The cut grades for the other shapes are irrelevant as they are neither accepted nor used.
Until they find a way to grade patterns the step cut grades will stay unaccepted and irrelevant.

I know it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do so, but do any online retailers sell AGS gold ideals in addition to GIA triple-EX? Does AGS charge more for 3D light proportion platinum grading than the lower effort of 2D proportion grading of AGS gold or GIA?

I imagine that some online boutique retailers have seen quite a lot of fancy shapes and they have strong idea as to what sort of cut produces the best light performance. If AGS offers a cut grading system for some of these fancy shapes, and the diamond cutter is willing/able to cut to these guidelines, wouldn't an online boutique prefer to use the AGS ideal grade for their fancy shapes as a way to differentiate themselves from their competitors? Assuming that GIA and AGS charge the same price for diamond grading, then I would think it would be value added with no additional cost? The Pricescope user market is knowledgeable when it comes to the different cut grades available (ideal/ excellent, very good, good, etc.) and I would think they would prefer the peace of mind knowing that their fancy shaped stone has met a particular cut grading.

Finally, do the cutters send the finished cut and polished diamonds to AGS or GIA for grading before the diamonds are delivered to the online boutique for sale or does the boutique send the diamonds for grading after receipt from the cutter? I ask because I wonder if possibly the boutique can reject a stone from the cutter that doesn't receive the top cut designation when they paid for one that will.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Re:

I imagine that some online boutique retailers have seen quite a lot of fancy shapes and they have strong idea as to what sort of cut produces the best light performance. If AGS offers a cut grading system for some of these fancy shapes, and the diamond cutter is willing/able to cut to these guidelines, wouldn't an online boutique prefer to use the AGS ideal grade for their fancy shapes as a way to differentiate themselves from their competitors? Assuming that GIA and AGS charge the same price for diamond grading, then I would think it would be value added with no additional cost? The Pricescope user market is knowledgeable when it comes to the different cut grades available (ideal/ excellent, very good, good, etc.) and I would think they would prefer the peace of mind knowing that their fancy shaped stone has met a particular cut grading.

It goes back to the rough and gets complicated.
An AGS0 SE would have to cost 20%+ more than the higher priced SE on the market to make it worth while because of weight retention and labor issues.
Very few sellers might be able to do so.
Ideal/ideal pol/sym is harder to hit all the time with fancies is another issue.
It does not grade the most important thing and that is patterns, a EC/SE grading system that does not grade patterns is useless but at the same time near impossible to achieve.

There was one cutter for a while cutting under 1ct ags0 specs SE but they sent them to gia for grading and could not cut them 1ct and over and make money. They were nice but not more awesome than others.

 

[John P]

Re: AGS Triple Zero & Gia Ideal Cut Ranges Shrinking in the

In our favor is the fact that we're unusual. Not everyone is willing to sell crystals one-of, and the crystals which will finish as shapes and makes outside our brand can be extremely interesting for others.

John, what do you mean by "crystals one-of"? Are these just full cut and polished diamonds that you sell individually, as opposed to a parcel or lot that don't meet your brand standards?

No. I mean single rough crystals in parcels we win which are (a) impossible to cut into our brand's two shapes or (b) suitable for round/princess but impractical to force into our brand's tolerances: If we have a rough crystal that will finish best as a 2.00ct 60/60 round we'd need to reduce the diameter so much to shape the crown to our performance requirements that we would lose significant weight. If we were to do this and finish at 1.40 (example) we'll lose money since we had to bid on that parcel as-if that crystal would finish at 2.00ct - since that's how everyone bidding against us figured it. Rather than cutting to 1.40 and selling at a loss we will try to recover our cost by selling that rough crystal to someone else in the diamond district who will cut it to 2.00 and be profitable.

I imagine that some online boutique retailers have seen quite a lot of fancy shapes and they have strong idea as to what sort of cut produces the best light performance. If AGS offers a cut grading system for some of these fancy shapes, and the diamond cutter is willing/able to cut to these guidelines, wouldn't an online boutique prefer to use the AGS ideal grade for their fancy shapes as a way to differentiate themselves from their competitors? Assuming that GIA and AGS charge the same price for diamond grading, then I would think it would be value added with no additional cost? The Pricescope user market is knowledgeable when it comes to the different cut grades available (ideal/ excellent, very good, good, etc.) and I would think they would prefer the peace of mind knowing that their fancy shaped stone has met a particular cut grading.

Reinforcing Karl's answer: There is significant additional cost in cutting rough to the narrow range of specifications that meet 'AGS Ideal' requirements in fancy shapes. We are frequently losing bids on parcels with princess-suitable rough because other producers will cut larger diamonds. Remember that outside the AGS there is no cut requirement for fancy shapes, and AGS is barely-known in the real retail world (for reasons given at the outset of this thread) so the path of least resistance, ease and profit is to cut fancies for good yield and send them to GIA, who are respected for color and clarity, don't require 'Ideal' polish/symmetry for the top grade and don't have cut requirements.

Certainly Pricescope is great, but even here the level of understanding and consensus regarding fancy shapes and performance is far behind that of the (by comparison) cookie-cut round brilliant. And if you see this article you'll discover that even the round brilliant has diversity in appearance that all falls under the same "grade."

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/laboratory_cut_grades_what_report_doesn’t_show

Finally, do the cutters send the finished cut and polished diamonds to AGS or GIA for grading before the diamonds are delivered to the online boutique for sale or does the boutique send the diamonds for grading after receipt from the cutter? I ask because I wonder if possibly the boutique can reject a stone from the cutter that doesn't receive the top cut designation when they paid for one that will.

I'm not sure how you're using the word boutique. I presume you mean some PS sellers - and if so there are a wide variety of ways the popular sellers here source inventory. In the big picture most diamonds go to the grading lab from the manufacturer. Once graded they may be distributed to suppliers or retailers who purchase them or hold them on memo. Some PS sellers purchase their own "signature" inventory. Others reproduce suppliers' lists on their sites and call a diamond into their location when someone calls with interest. Any of them have the power to accept or reject a diamond, whether cut-to-order or called-in. The exception would be the so-called "drop-shippers," where a company reproduced a list of diamonds located with suppliers on their website, and when a sale is made they have it sent to the buyer without ever seeing the diamond they sold.

As a manufacturer producing a brand we are unusual: We source the rough, photograph it, craft the diamonds, perform brand approval, take finished photos and send the diamonds to the lab. After grading they return to Antwerp with and we distribute them, along with our own paperwork, to our dealer-network. Most cutters do not give upstream documentation. In fact, when you see images and analysis from the popular PS sellers it is those sellers who are making the (significant) effort to provide these things and they deserve credit for that. The reason Pricescope-readers have a broader understanding of modern cut metrics and assessment possibilities than the average consumer is because of the conversation and spirited debate about such nuances here. In the "real-world" the level of understanding and conversation is nowhere close.

The industry is very slow to change. I would have thought by now that more suppliers (at least) and possibly more cutters would be making the effort to provide increased diamond-specific information about cut and appearance to their constituents. As it stands few suppliers go beyond scanning and posting a grading report - although Venus Jewel in India does a nice job of supplemental info. On a related note I believe there should be more sourcing accountability for any diamond produced, as a matter of social responsibility - but that's a subject for another thread.

 

[soontomarry2]

Re: AGS Triple Zero & Gia Ideal Cut Ranges Shrinking in the

Karl_K and John, you are both huge assets to this community, true gems!

It seems there is this ever present battle in the retail industry between the best cut and the best price for the retailer. Where the consumer lands seems almost solely related to their education level and what they can detect with their with an unaided eye.

I have a few questions for you both, some are a little off-topic, I hope that is ok

Ideal/ideal pol/sym is harder to hit all the time with fancies is another issue.

Why is ideal polish and symmetry more difficult to hit with a fancy shape? Is it due to more oddly shaped and unusual facets or it is mainly due to inexperience with differrent shapes as compared to RBs?

It does not grade the most important thing and that is patterns, a EC/SE grading system that does not grade patterns is useless but at the same time near impossible to achieve.

Is an Ideal-Scope and ASET imager the only hope for someone buying a fancy shape, given that they have or are familiar with images of more poorly cut fancy shapes of the same make that they are interested in? I’m particularly concerned about this because after purchasing two amazing RBs for my fiancé, I’m ready to venture out into the wild world of fancies but I feel dangerously unequipped as compared to my first two ventures into RB purchasing.

There was one cutter for a while cutting under 1ct ags0 specs SE but they sent them to gia for grading and could not cut them 1ct and over and make money.

Why was it difficult for this cutter to maintain AGS0 SEs and cut them over 1ct? Couldn’t they have started with a large rough? Or maybe this is due to something I didn’t glean from previous replies – rough is generally only available in sizes that will produce diamonds at the major price milestones when cut improperly (improper meaning that they won’t necessary reach AGS0).

They were nice but not more awesome than others.

Are these under 1ct. AGS0 SEs not more awesome than others because it is possible for the cutter to vary step-cuts or cut/pattern and achieve similar light performance results without reaching AGS0 rendering the AGS grading useless and achieving a greater profit for the greater weight?

I'm not sure how you're using the word boutique. I presume you mean some PS sellers - and if so there are a wide variety of ways the popular sellers here source inventory. In the big picture most diamonds go to the grading lab from the manufacturer. Once graded they may be distributed to suppliers or retailers who purchase them or hold them on memo.

I’m sorry for my poor terminology, by boutique I did mean PS seller. What does it mean to hold them on memo? Is this holding them pending some particular event?

Some PS sellers purchase their own "signature" inventory.

I’m assuming they are purchased from the cutter after they specify their particular “signature cut” to the cutter and the cutter proves they are able to supply them.

As a manufacturer producing a brand we are unusual: We source the rough, photograph it, craft the diamonds, perform brand approval, take finished photos and send the diamonds to the lab. After grading they return to Antwerp with and we distribute them, along with our own paperwork, to our dealer-network. Most cutters do not give upstream documentation. In fact, when you see images and analysis from the popular PS sellers it is those sellers who are making the (significant) effort to provide these things and they deserve credit for that.

Are the vendor performed assessments the method by which they can insure the cutter is providing exactly what they asked for?

As a manufacturer uniquely performing so many aspects of the diamond producing process, it seems you are making the process a lot easier for the end retailer. It is possible for a layperson to specify a very particularly defined make/cut (and the other 3 C's of course) to your company and buy the resulting stone? This would be done not as a cost savings (I imagine that specify a one-off would be even more expensive than one bought in the market place) but rather because they would want to buy a diamond with very specific values?

The industry is very slow to change. I would have thought by now that more suppliers (at least) and possibly more cutters would be making the effort to provide increased diamond-specific information about cut and appearance to their constituents.

Is it possible that more suppliers feel it would be too costly for them to provide this additional information on each diamond they sell? Maybe they haven’t figured out how to maintain low costs and still provide this information?

Thank you both again for all your help!

 

[Karl_K]

Re: AGS Triple Zero & Gia Ideal Cut Ranges Shrinking in the

Ideal/ideal pol/sym is harder to hit all the time with fancies is another issue.

Why is ideal polish and symmetry more difficult to hit with a fancy shape? Is it due to more oddly shaped and unusual facets or it is mainly due to inexperience with different shapes as compared to RBs?
It would take hours to explain it totally but the simplified answer is with a RB all the facets tie into each other and comparatively easily fall into the right place. With step cuts that is not the case and it takes a lot of work and skill to line them up manually.
That takes nothing away from the skills of the cutters who cut ideal-ideal RBs Step cuts are just harder.

It does not grade the most important thing and that is patterns, a EC/SE grading system that does not grade patterns is useless but at the same time near impossible to achieve.

Is an Ideal-Scope and ASET imager the only hope for someone buying a fancy shape, given that they have or are familiar with images of more poorly cut fancy shapes of the same make that they are interested in? I’m particularly concerned about this because after purchasing two amazing RBs for my fiancé, I’m ready to venture out into the wild world of fancies but I feel dangerously unequipped as compared to my first two ventures into RB purchasing.

pictures and video combined with an expert vendor who knows the cut are a fancy cut shoppers best friend when shopping online.