"Concerned" about the newer AGS girdle % variations

[2Bmarried]

While looking for diamonds again recently, I noticed that the AGS certs look different. I know there were adjustments / revisions earlier this year. I specifically noticed that the girdle % is generally widely varying among most RB diamonds I''ve looked at. In the past, I had been wary of such variation. But now it "seems" to me that the variations are just because of the new way the cut is graded and how the points (dips & peaks) on the girdle of the diamond are noted. In these instances (with the newer AGS reports), should I pay more attention to the Sarin report (which seems "unchanged") if it accompanies the stone, or rely on the new AGS girdle grading?

Just a bit confused. Thanks!

 

[strmrdr]

I wish they had decided to give both.

Either one will tell you if you need to have the girdle checked in person by an expert and neither in borderline cases can tell you enough about it to avoid having it checked.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

AGS have allowed cutters more leeway to produce a nice stone.
These are the things they down garde for:

If the girdle is too thick it affects the spread (less than 5% heavier than Tolkowsky)
If it is so thin it risks chipping
If it results in poor symmetry.

But you assume you can do better by reading a report and grade better than they can with the stone under their scope etc?

Trust them.

 

[elmo]

Wouldn't the girdle valley min and max be a more definitive indicator of extra or minimized weight in the girdle, still within the ideal range? Of course diameter and the new girdle numbers also tell the story but maybe not as explicitly?

 

[2Bmarried]

I guess I''m a bit confused when I look at a diamond that has (for example) an AGS report showing a girdle variance of 0.7% - 3.9%, yet the Sarin for the same diamond says 0.7% - 2.0%.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

The new way in which AGS lists the girdle is indeed confusing for anyone who is comparing it to the old way or the GIA-way.

The grade is based upon the thickest part of the girdle, as opposed to the valleys, which GIA reports and AGS used to report. At the same time, on the chart on the grading-report, AGS mentions both the thickest part of the girdle as the thinnest part in the valleys. This results in a notation, which looks like a very high variation. With most people not aware of this, it is awkward to deal with.

I also had problems with customers, who did not believe in our consistent cutting anymore, based upon their understanding of this notation.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks Paul.

I was not aware that the thinnest valley part would be noted.

2B the 0.7% = about 2.5% or 2.6% at the thick part. So there is not that much variation.

 

[belle]

link about girdles (the diamond kind)