AGSL is crossing the lines of good taste!!!

[diagem]

Just amazing how commercial they are willing to go!! Really!

 

[bmfang]

I never understand the attraction of adding more facets to a diamond. Especially if all that does is reduce the scintillation to smaller pinpoint flashes!

It’s like mechanical watch manufacturers going overboard with the number of friction bearing jewels in their watch calibres (more jewels does not mean a better movement).

I wonder if the AGSL Twitter feed has been hacked...

 

[Karl_K]

I would not call it poor taste as much as piss poor ethics.
A grading lab should not be endorsing diamond products.
This is not the first time AGSL has crossed that line.

 

[diagem]

I would not call it poor taste as much as piss poor ethics.
A grading lab should not be endorsing diamond products.
This is not the first time AGSL has crossed that line.

Don't know which is worse, this just pushes me not to utilize their services in the future anymore!

 

[HDer]

Did a quick search for Crown of Light and saw these:

https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUse..._International-Cozumel_Yucatan_Peninsula.html
https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUse..._International-Cozumel_Yucatan_Peninsula.html
http://jcrs.com/newsletters/2016/2016_05.htm

Looks like a diamond chain that specifically markets to people while they're on cruise in order to trick them into buying something with a vastly inflated price.

This would be like your house inspector telling you: "You know what's a great investment? Timeshares." Not a good look, and maybe time to get a new inspector.

 

[HDer]

Their sales tactics remind me of this Always Sunny episode:

 

[ChristineRose]

Yeah, the sleazy tactics have been discussed here before.

Does AGL grade these things? I mean any sort of light performance grade, as that's what they are claiming.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I could make the case that the entire manner of judging "light performance" by AGSL a marketing tool which is based on science that supports the conclusions certain segments want. While ignoring others ( such as the Radiant cut)
But this does suck big time, on their behalf.

 

[diagem]

I could make the case that the entire manner of judging "light performance" by AGSL a marketing tool which is based on science that supports the conclusions certain segments want. While ignoring others ( such as the Radiant cut)
But this does suck big time, on their behalf.

Well, no one yet managed or found it worth their time to R&D the science of LP on Radiant Cuts yet so I wouldn't discount the potential. Maybe Rhino will, I hear he is on a roll . Science is provable.
On the other hand, AGSL limits their evaluations by claiming light comes from above "only" which complicates things thus limiting others from R&D on fancy shapes in general..., part of the performance of Radiants (and other modified cuts) is the fact that light enters from below the girdle on the pavilion side which AGSL cancels out definitely. Some crushed ice appearances get called as leakage and I already proved to AGSL that partial leakage exists which of course they discounted without willing to participate in academic discussion.

That's off topic though..., on topic why would AGSL promote sparkle and not LP as they demand from other cuts to be categorized as "superb" or as we are more used to "ideal"! AGSL is allowing themselves the luxury to promote cuts based on sparkle? That is either new or purely commercial.

Isn't that against their own policies? Or so I thought..., I am guessing that if an entity will spend enough $$$, than science can be thrown out of the research basket, so it seems.

Such a big turn off for people like me. I decided I will not submit any of my cuts to AGSL anymore. Thankfully we have enough tools to show the LP results of our cuts "when" we choose to.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Yoram!!
My buddy Stan tried with AGSL, for years. Since they could not develop a workable metric for scintillation, they can't grade a radiant.
Science that excludes light hitting the diamond other than from above is quite limited science.
To me, the two issues are related.
But- I don;t think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.
At this point, all we have is GIA and AGSL- so regardless of some issues, I believe AGSL should be supported by the trade.
But I can totally understand a cutter like you using only GIA.

 

[diagem]

At this point, all we have is GIA and AGSL- so regardless of some issues, I believe AGSL should be supported by the trade.

Support is a two way street as I was brought up to believe. I spend way too much time trying to enter into academic discussions with them just to find out they are willing to support big spenders and less so academic discussions....

 

[valeria101]

Since they could not develop a workable metric for scintillation ...

[any metric] that excludes light hitting the diamond other than from above is quite limited ...

Nice problems !

Wouldn't mind constructing Beauty out of each & both ...

[just happened to notice a darling case of 'light from behind' - WWW through a shallow, scintillating pear FY backed by reflecting metal]

 

[Matthews1127]

Support is a two way street as I was brought up to believe. I spend way too much time trying to enter into academic discussions with them just to find out they are willing to support big spenders and less so academic discussions....

I agree 100% with you; business is supposed to be a win-win on both sides, if it is to be beneficial to all, including the consumer.
Have you made any progress in your pursuit of Academic Discussions with AGSL?