AGS0 Princess Cuts

[StevL]

After seeing a couple stones for the first time I have many questions to find answers to.

At first look this looks to be a cutters dream. Deep heavy stones yielding a lot of weight from the rough and getting top dollar on the market for the "0" cut grade.

These stones do exhibit a lot of contrast brilliance which I think Michael Cowing has been talking about for years.

For Rhino and others who use the Brilliance Scope...
Why does the BS not come to the same conclusion as the AGS lab? Why do these stones score rather low?

 

[StevL]

Bump...

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/20/2005 10:20:33 AM
Author: StevL
Bump...

Hi Steve.

I had not heard that AGS0 princess cuts were doing poorly on BS. I know the ASET view endorsed by the AGS, and the ideal-scope images I have seen, rival well cut non-AGS0 diamonds. Of course, the ASET and ideal-scope are static, natural reflector-based scopes and don't operate like the BS. Have you seen samples of consistently low BS reports on these? I have seen AGS0 princess cuts 'live' and they are quite attractive.

 

[StevL]

Hi John,

I have the princess cuts on my desk from two different sources. The diamonds were provided with AGS reports and BS results. The BS reports are much lower than I have seen on other so called regular goods. They pretty much score medium and at times get a mark or two in the high. I haven't seen one yet that gets a mark into the very high.

I know there are many BS users on the forum and thought I could get some answers.

The ASET tool reminds me of the Firescope that Mr. Gilbertson (at GIA) added additional colors to. The AGS had Richard detailing this tool for a couple years. I guess AGS made their own version from what I have seen.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/20/2005 11:09:01 AM
Author: StevL
Hi John,

I have the princess cuts on my desk from two different sources. The diamonds were provided with AGS reports and BS results. The BS reports are much lower than I have seen on other so called regular goods. They pretty much score medium and at times get a mark or two in the high. I haven't seen one yet that gets a mark into the very high.

I know there are many BS users on the forum and thought I could get some answers.

The ASET tool reminds me of the Firescope that Mr. Gilbertson (at GIA) added additional colors to. The AGS had Richard detailing this tool for a couple years. I guess AGS made their own version from what I have seen.

Yep, ASET did get its roots from Gilbertson (For anyone interested, here is a link to a graphic describing Gilbertson - here is one to a graphic describing ASET). All of these reflectors are descended from Okuda - all are sound in principal - but the ideal-scope with its single reflector color seems to be the only one that can be telling in its portable (shot glass) version. The hand-held ASET with multiple colors is not consistent without some method of standardization. The desktop ASET seems a more likely device for standardized results - especially since they are planning on different stages to accomodate different sized diamonds - but its young.

To the original question - we don't use BS, but will be interested to hear the answer as well.

 

[Capitol Bill]

Hi Steve,
Your comments are puzzling. But then I haven't seen the "couple stones" that you are using to make your generalization. With all due respect to you as a reputable jeweler, my experience with AGS-0 princess cuts has been the complete opposite. All of the AGS-0 princesses that I've seen thus far have been precisely cut, stellar performers. I've also seen B'Scope reports, which accompanied several of these stones, and all of them had three "Very High's" (though I don't fully buy into the B'Scope technology).

If AGS-0's are (as you suggest) "a cutters dream", you've also got to be wondering why there aren't a lot of cutters clamoring to cut them. Again, my understanding is the complete opposite of yours -- I've heard it's very difficult and time consuming to attain AGS's top grade consistently, and cutters don't want to risk ending up with AGS-1s, -2s, -3s or worse. Perhaps one of the cutters of AGS princess cuts will see your post and chime in to address your concerns in a more in-depth manner.

Unfortunately, any discussion related to this issue of late has unnecessarily resulted into some unsavory and embarrassing comments and allegations. Perhaps folks here have chosen to avoid addressing your post because they’ve grown tired of such posts generating a lot of heat and very little light. If your concerns are genuine, which I trust they are, I would welcome an open discussion to address them. To those others who have chosen to sling mud at AGS princess cuts I say this -- if a stone is beautiful it will sell, regardless of its lab "pedigree."
Kind regards,
Bill Scherlag

 

[StevL]

Bill,

If you read my post again you will see that I agree they have contrast brilliance. Each one isn''t a fireball of color however. They do look nice. They are deep, I''m now reading something Paul wrote to see if it makes more sense (the depth).

What I am concerned about is the BS reports. If not the diamond then is there a problem with the BS? Something here has to be explained.

I have been on the net for 10 years now. I have watched this forum start from the beginning along with DT. Leonid knows me pretty well, so does Jonathan, Bill (Rockdoc), Michael Cowing, and others. I''ve been through a lot more on these boards than you thus far. I have seen consumers making purchases based on technologies that seem to not be playing out at this moment. This concerns me and I would like it explained.

I have four AGS0 princess cuts in my hand (from two different sources). None have any very highs, one has two highs, and two do not get above medium at all with one being a borderline.

I''m asking legitimate questions to the people who have "studied" performance based tools. I think I''m asking a very reasonable question that should get a reasonable answer. If we/you like the answer it doesn''t matter, it needs to be an honest answer and maybe there are solutions.

I look forward to a reasonable honest answer to what seems to be taking place. Is it the equipment or the stone? Why is it happening? Like I''ve always said; "use your own eyes and compare".

 

[Rhino]

...

 

[StevL]

Thanks J, I''ll drop you an email.

Glad someone stepped up!

 

[kenny]

SteveL wrote: "Like I've always said; "use your own eyes and compare".
That's great for you pros with lots of experience or for customers in a B&M, who are NOT buying online.

Me, I am one of the growing number of Internet-only customers.
I can't see the stone.
Even if I could I don't trust my inexperienced eyes with such a decision.

I depend on things like an AGS 0 on a report, and on tools like BS, and IS photos.
Sorry, I don't want to trust a person.
I want tools, data and reports from reputable organizations like AGS.

I'm not just speaking for myself.
I think you know that I am speaking for most of tomorrow's online buyers.

Am I being led astray Steve?
What's the solution?
Just trust anyone selling a stone as long as he says it is beautiful?
Frankly I'm afraid that those customers are going the way of the dinosaur.

 

[DiamondExpert]

Hi Steve:

I agree that there is a "disconnect" between what you see with your eyes in these stones and the BS results, which leads me to believe that there is an element of "unpredictability" or "the unknown" in the BS.

I have example of a stone which scores 3xHV(scint/dispersion pegged) on the BS AND looks great, with a lot of contrast brilliance, but then I have another which looks just as great, but does only Med-Hi on the BS.

This is why I have concerns and questions about just what the BS is telling us.

 

[StevL]

Kenny,

I understand your question and/or concern. This is why I'm asking the question(s). Diamond buying certainly isn't a perfect science and by many it may not be a science at all.

You must also consider what one person likes the look of and others may not. Who is right and who is wrong... I say neither. The choice may come down to what look you like. This is why the "Ideal" is much more than one set of parameters. The labs no there isn't any one cut for everyone.

If I was being sold by a photo and dimensions I would have never caught my wife

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I being led astray Steve? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what makes you happy.
What's the solution? Maybe shopping in a B&M, compare brilliance, dispersion, and the balance of the two.

These seem like easy questions but they really are not. Complex questions for a complex product.

 

[kenny]

I appreciate everything you are saying Steve.

But still. . . how''s an e-buyer to pick?

All this stuff you don''t like is all we have.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

It seems to me that the problem with all of the heated discussions about the AGS ideal princess is that, by virtue of AGS''s claim to have "scientifically" determined the "ideal" the discussions are all predicated on the truth of that claim. Since various devices also claim to be able to "scientifically" measure beauty, there is, inevitably a clash between the multiple"scientific" approaches, each of which defines "performance" differently. If it''s really hardv science, then someone must be right and the others wrong. The reality is that these are all "scientific brands" - brands that create added marketing value based on the collection of some form of data. There is no such thing as a truly scientifically determined "ideal" because too many of the choices made in creating the "science" are subjective.

The AGS "ideal" isn''t nicer because the AGS says it is ideal, and it isn''t less nice because a brilliancescope says so either. The discussion should really center on whether the diamonds are nice. The "ideal" label is nothing but a distraction.

The AGS has performed a service to the industry by encouraging the trade to cut a new variety of princess cut. It is not inherently better, but it is different and some people like them quite a bit. Others do not. If enough people like it, and if the AGS brand is strong enough to convince consumers to pay a premium for it, then the cut will become an important new part of the princess cut landscape. It will not, however, supplant traditional princess cuts, and those who prefer the traditional stones, or who value a brilliancescope evaluation more than the AGS''s opinion, are not wrong.

Science cannot answer questions that are inherently a matter of opinion. It can only provide data that can help us make more educated choices.

 

[StevL]

RADIANTMAN,
Well said!

-----------------------------------------------------

Goes back to what you like as the purchaser, either a wholesaler, retailer, or the end consumer it''s about the look to your eye. It could be bigger, smaller, more or less brilliant, more or less colorful. More colorless, cleaner, etc.

 

[elmo]

So Steve, it wasn''t clear from your original post. Do you like the AGS0 stones less or more than a nice "traditional" princess cut? Think you will be stocking them extensively, one or two, or not at all?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/20/2005 2:42:58 PM
Author: StevL

If I was being sold by a photo and dimensions I would have never caught my wife

Touche' Steve.

Kenny - I sure hear you from the perspective of consumers entering into buying decisions on the internet.

Labels like 'ideal' aside, it's positive that grading labs are recognizing the need to provide sight-unseen analysis as more sight-unseen commerce happens. Traditionally a buyer saw the diamond first in the store, and the paper to back it up came after. Now, with internet purchasing, the online buyer sees the documentation and wants other proof of performance before ever seeing the diamond live. What a reversal. The demand for proof as a priority has brought new life to old methods of evaluation (reflectors like ideal-scope & ASET) and has spawned poularity for mechanical means (like Imagem, BS, Isee) - as well as computer simulations. More is on the way.

AGS appears to be on the cutting edge of what sight-unseen buyers want with their discriminating top grade (admittedly 'top' by their standards...). It's direct performance assessment that includes a natural reflector (ASET) and some virtual simulation. An AGS0 document accompanying a diamond, whether round or ideal, infers 'something' sight-unseen that is tangible to shoppers. I am not saying it is the penultimate decree, but it does carry weight.

GIA holds to broad proportions only. This will be better than nothing for sight-unseen buyers, but because 'Excellent' is proving to be quite inclusive their top grade may not be viewed at the same level of discrimination as the AGS0.

Either way, I don't think a grade will be 'enough' for the average PS analyst. AGS0 light performance will mean 'something,' but they will want to know HCA analysis, see ideal-scope/ASET images, etc. Apart from the 'official' lab endorsed methods that hold water, buyers and consumer analysts must choose their tools of analysis. There are many to choose from - not all in agreement with each other - all which may be considered a piece of the puzzle.

Date: 10/20/2005 2:46:06 PM
Author: RADIANTMAN

Science cannot answer questions that are inherently a matter of opinion. It can only provide data that can help us make more educated choices.

Bravo. Which brings up another element.

Apart from all of this, in the trade there has always been value in the reputability of the 'trusted' jeweler - and cautionary tales about ones that may not be so. The integrity and reputation of an individual or company can be a great boon to someone buying sight-unseen, just as it can in live situations. Beauty can't be defined by a single number - or set of numbers. Therefore, when taste and opinion enter the equation there is still no substitute for the eyes of a trusted expert. There is some concern that, with the 'commoditization' of diamonds to numbers and reports and scopes, the role of the human - the 'trusted jeweler' - will diminish. This would make buying a diamond much like buying a car or toaster online. I'm interested in consumer thoughts along those lines, as well as in the different methods of measure we are seeing evolve as internet sales proliferate.

 

[WinkHPD]

Like Bill I have had the exact opposite results Steve. Here is a BS of a diamond that I had a few weeks ago. I had another diamond the same exact weight that had a very similar report although I did not photograph it. Since the AGS report is based on light performance I can not imagine that the diamonds are "sneaking through" and are therefor worthy of a bad BS report. Rather I would imagine that it is a fault of the data by the BS. All of the AGS0 princess cuts that I have seen so far have had very nice BS reports, but I am hearing more and more about a few that do not.

All of the major labs have looked at and rejected the BS and one of the reasons given was the lack of repeatability of the equipment and doubts as to its accuracy was also stated to me in private conversations.

I too will be interested in the possible reasons why some are getting low BS reports and some are getting very nice reports, it is a mystery to me.

Wink

 

[StevL]

Date: 10/20/2005 3:14:51 PM
Author: elmo
So Steve, it wasn''t clear from your original post. Do you like the AGS0 stones less or more than a nice ''traditional'' princess cut? Think you will be stocking them extensively, one or two, or not at all?

I liked the stones very much. I also like some of the more traditional princess cuts that I have seen (stocked and sold). They all (the new stones) had great contrast in the office environment but they all were not equal fireballs when comparing dispersion. Please keep in mind this was not scientific and many stones differ in different lighting conditions.

I was more shocked that the BS didn''t return high results on each and every stone. I thought it was a rather broad return of reports.

I will certainly stock a few to test the waters. Ultimately it will be my customers that decide how deeply I stock these. At this point I think if you are really picky about selecting a traditional princess cut you can certainly get an equal performance at a less costly investment.

Hey, I just started viewing these new princess cuts. I may change my mind for better or worse, but I have to look, learn, and play before I will be totally comfortable either way. The one thing that is clear at this point, they seem to come with a price.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 10/20/2005 11:46:36 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 10/20/2005 11:09:01 AM
Author: StevL
Hi John,

I have the princess cuts on my desk from two different sources. The diamonds were provided with AGS reports and BS results. The BS reports are much lower than I have seen on other so called regular goods. They pretty much score medium and at times get a mark or two in the high. I haven''t seen one yet that gets a mark into the very high.

I know there are many BS users on the forum and thought I could get some answers.

The ASET tool reminds me of the Firescope that Mr. Gilbertson (at GIA) added additional colors to. The AGS had Richard detailing this tool for a couple years. I guess AGS made their own version from what I have seen.

Yep, ASET did get its roots from Gilbertson (For anyone interested, here is a link to a graphic describing Gilbertson - here is one to a graphic describing ASET). All of these reflectors are descended from Okuda - all are sound in principal - but the ideal-scope with its single reflector color seems to be the only one that can be telling in its portable (shot glass) version. The hand-held ASET with multiple colors is not consistent without some method of standardization. The desktop ASET seems a more likely device for standardized results - especially since they are planning on different stages to accomodate different sized diamonds - but its young.

To the original question - we don''t use BS, but will be interested to hear the answer as well.

http://ideal-scope.com/using_fancy.asp
The static view with fancy shapes is actually not as valuable.
I discovered this and displayed this little section 2 years ago on Ideal-Scope.
It is hard to do - but you are better to rotate the stone with a hand held Ideal-Scope of ASET for fancy shapes (maybe Asscher is an exception).

hope this helps

BTW, I think there is a good opportunity price wise to buy / sell AGS1, 2 and 3 pricess that look just as good but have a downgrade for a minor finishe feature etc

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/20/2005 11:42:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

http://ideal-scope.com/using_fancy.asp
The static view with fancy shapes is actually not as valuable.
I discovered this and displayed this little section 2 years ago on Ideal-Scope.

It is hard to do - but you are better to rotate the stone with a hand held Ideal-Scope of ASET for fancy shapes (maybe Asscher is an exception).

Right about fancy shapes and IS. Still curious about desktop ASET and fancies.

Interesting about the hand held IS and rotation. For someone going from diamond to diamond for casual analysis it could be fun, but consistency would be an issue if trying to make a choice between close candidates. It would be an engaging experiment to try and see how consistent one could make it.

Date: 10/20/2005 11:42:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

BTW, I think there is a good opportunity price wise to buy / sell AGS1, 2 and 3 pricess that look just as good but have a downgrade for a minor finishe feature etc

Very true. For example, while our ACA princess cut is in development we''ve had a few experimental cuts come back with AGS 0 light performance, but Ex in finish (sym or polish). Getting the light performance rating was the focus. Since they were not 0 in all aspects the price point was as you alluded above.

 

[valeria101]

You know what the limits of my insight are...

But, judging from quite some quantity of example of Princess cuts (regulars, AGS0s are too new and too few to have done the same for them) with IS and BS reports, it seems that there is a consistent difference betwen the two tools: the BS prizes contrast brilliance (the black spots under the IS or reflector facets, whatever you''d call these) more than the IS pictures and the guidelines on Ideal-Scope.com suggest, and also, the BS scores seem to act as additive metrics in that they allow compensation between contrast brilliance and lickeage - if both are present allot the stone looks strange unde the IS but score tops inder the Brilliance Scope.

With a consistent difference of scoring known, the two tools could still be useful together. If the combination (IS-BS) is more informative than either of the two, is another question...

The H&A rounds do not give too many occasions to see this because there''s never such a reflection pattern in them, but fancies show it.

I suspect that the systematic inspection of a representative sample of reports will confirm this. If you can agree on a virtual model representative for the BScope lighting scheme, that should make thinsg very straihtforward.

The observations were based mostly on Jonathan''s database of reports as it used to be on an earlier version of his website. I realize that the selection criteria applied to these records at Good Old Gold have a very substantial impact on any such statistics... However, if the variation effect was observed on a more homegeneous sample, it could only be reinforced. So... this is why I didn''t mention this much, but kept the opinion on the ''maybe worth investigating'' shelf until now. ''Thought I''d mentinon.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

SteveL and Stan the Radiant man are right to question science and - as someone said - the various ''brands'' of science.

I am of the opinion that Bscope measures something, but still not sure what it is that it measures.

AGS however have been very open, and Peter Yantzer is man who we should respect for one very important thing.

He does not think he has the answers - just the best possible at this point in time. I am reviewing their method at present as Peter has given me their data on some stones we have been discussing here on Pricescope in various thrreads on BIC, TIC and FIC. More about that later - but it is relevant here because Peter is sharing this info to emnable peer review (and I am flatered to be considered a peer).

PY and AGS have publicly made no bones about the fact that they still have not cracked the code for scintillation. and this is a rather critical factor in princess cuts because of the size of the sparkles (many are too small to see, but maybe the BScope does measure them?).

Sergey and OctoNus are way out front still in my mind - but Sergey will not release a 3/4 operational system. AGS have, but it is still far superior to anything else out there. It does for instance discriminate on diamond grading by diamond size - something that the GIA''s system does not and can not do.

So this is a good discussion folks - keep it going. Lets get some real observations and some real 3D scans as Gem adviser files so everyone can see and touch etc.

 

[Capitol Bill]

Date: 10/21/2005 1:51:55 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
SteveL and Stan the Radiant man are right to question science and - as someone said - the various ''brands'' of science.

I am of the opinion that Bscope measures something, but still not sure what it is that it measures.

AGS however have been very open, and Peter Yantzer is man who we should respect for one very important thing.

He does not think he has the answers - just the best possible at this point in time. I am reviewing their method at present as Peter has given me their data on some stones we have been discussing here on Pricescope in various thrreads on BIC, TIC and FIC. More about that later - but it is relevant here because Peter is sharing this info to emnable peer review (and I am flatered to be considered a peer).

PY and AGS have publicly made no bones about the fact that they still have not cracked the code for scintillation. and this is a rather critical factor in princess cuts because of the size of the sparkles (many are too small to see, but maybe the BScope does measure them?).

Sergey and OctoNus are way out front still in my mind - but Sergey will not release a 3/4 operational system. AGS have, but it is still far superior to anything else out there. It does for instance discriminate on diamond grading by diamond size - something that the GIA''s system does not and can not do.

So this is a good discussion folks - keep it going. Lets get some real observations and some real 3D scans as Gem adviser files so everyone can see and touch etc.

I would like to associate myself with Garry''s comments especially concerning the open, SCIENTIFIC approach of the AGS lab. They''re the first to admit they don''t have all the answers, but they definitely have the basis for a sound approach to cut grading. And they are making their methods and data available to all for review and critical analysis. Kudos!
Bill Scherlag

 

[Serg]

One researcher come to good Italian restaurant and ask: Who is like Italian cuisine?
Him scientific conclusion : 91% of world population love Italian cuisine.
Him competitor come to good Chinese restaurant and ask: Who is like Chinese cuisine?
Competitor scientific conclusion : 95 % of world population like Chinese cuisine.

Who is right?

 

[StevL]

Date: 10/21/2005 9:49:39 AM
Author: Serg

One researcher come to good Italian restaurant and ask: Who is like Italian cuisine?
Him scientific conclusion : 91% of world population love Italian cuisine.
Him competitor come to good Chinese restaurant and ask: Who is like Chinese cuisine?
Competitor scientific conclusion : 95 % of world population like Chinese cuisine.


Who is right?

Serg, I admire the way you can put things in perspective. Please pass the vitulus (I think that is veal).

 

[Rhino]

Just finding some time to catch up here.

Excellent comments Garry and good questions by all. I have a couple of GA files to share as per your request mate.

One excellent consistency we are finding amongst *all* AGS Ideal Princess Cuts (regardless of Bscope results) is that

a. The majority of facets are functioning as reflectors (as opposed to non-reflectors) (mirrors as opposed to windows) and
b. There must be enough light drawn from the 45-75 degree spectrum, combined with a certain balance of obstruction.

This is a very solid foundation upon which to build regardless of how short or far along they are with regards to other metrics (like scintillation).

Attached in this post is an example of a princess cut that scores 2/3 VH''s. Next one will be one that scores a medium/high/medium for your analysis.

These 2 stones represent 2 different flavors of AGS "0" princess cuts. One of the most notable factors is the amount of chevrons on the pavilion as well which is one factor contributing to the difference in appearance as well as others.

I have to tell ya ... this has been a personal struggle and journey for me. We generally turn down diamonds that score "x" on the BSscope. These new princess cuts have forced me to take a step out of my shoes and reassess things. At the same time Helium has also revealed stuff I once did not know or consider. A lot of cross roads are taking place here and the journey has been exciting.

Just a day ago one forum member was here as we were examining 2 new Ideal princess cuts side by side and to both the client and myself, our personal preference was for a medium/high/high (or around that) over a 2/3 VH''s.

This isn''t a dous on the BS but when it comes to examining princess cuts and comparing the BS results it is very important to know how to interpret the data and determining exactly what it means and what environments it is applicable to.

 

[Rhino]

Here's the other.

In some of the stones we've been testing, *generally* the light return results corellate to the BrillianceScope results however in this case the contrast scores corellate most with BrillianceScope results. Note the difference in light return and contrast scores.

 

[Midnight]

To Steve, Bill ...

or any vendors that might have seen and examined both the Infinity AGS 0 princess and the unbranded ones, can you please elaborate on your experience and if there is there a visual difference between them? Was there any consistent pattern on the IS, ASET, or BS that distinquish one from the other?

 

[RockDoc]

Hi Steve Good to see you here and hope you''re feeling well.

UPS delivered my hand held ASET and DESTOP ASET about 7 PM last night.

I have played with it a little last night, but I''d prefer not to comment until I''ve actually test enough samples with this equipment.

I have seen some of the AGS 0 stones, and they do vary in their "flavoring".

Like John I''ve seen some variances in the AGS 0 grading. I have seen also some varying differences in my light leakage assessments. These in fact, are quite stunning.

As far as the BScope goes, for these stones, one needs to thoroughly understand that the analyzer B Scope doesn''t meaurea beauty or attractiveness. This I believe to be the main difference in the varying opinions of B Scope results.

There is however a lot more result to be gathered from the BScope Viewer. This is because the attractiveness of the particular stone can be side by side compared in this tool, with the HUMAN eye, rather than the "robotic" eye of the B Scope. For stones that rate a bit lower on the B Scope, I sincerely believe there may be a little more hair-splitting than our eyes can see as compared to the pixel analysis that the B Scope Analyzer when compared with the Viewer instrument.

I want to certainly test more of these type stones before making any conclusive statement of my opinion of any perceived variances. In addition, I want to reconcile the results against the ASET tools ( both hand held and Desktop) and with the 2.4 version of Diamond Calc, the Sarin, my light leakage testing, and the B Scope equipment.

So far from what I''ve seen is that I''d recommend the AGS 0 grading to be sub divided, possibly a grading of AGS0-a / b and c that would be a little more discriminating of the differences. The 0-a 0-b and 0c perhaps honing in on the variances that do genuinely exist.

Rockdoc