Diamond cutting and grading over time

[niteowlsam]

I have a 20 year old AGS 000 diamond in my engagement ring. It was branded as a Hearts for Eternity which is no longer in existence. Proportions look great based on the recommendations on this forum. I am curious if cutting and grading methods/specs/standards have changed over the years or if I were to buy a diamond with similar specs now, would it look similar? We have discussed upgrading my e-ring into a new three stone and possibly moving my current center stone into a side stone position so I am wondering if this will work or if I would do better to start from scratch with all new stones. Thanks for your feedback!

 

[Karl_K]

The proportion sets and how it gets the ags0 grade has changed but if the proportions are in the same range they should go well together.
To advise you further can you post the numbers from the report or an image of the report itself.

 

[niteowlsam]

This is my current stone-

 

[Karl_K]

Should not be a problem finding compatible proportions.
I dont see any reason not to use it based on the report.

 

[lovedogs]

Your current stone has great proportions and I wouldn't hesitate to use it if I were you!

 

[niteowlsam]

Thanks for your feedback @Karl_K and @lovedogs
I guess I was just wondering if maybe the AGS tolerances for things like cut grade (symmetry, etc) had gotten any tighter in the last couple of decades. I would assume cutting methods have improved so maybe standards have changed? Does that make sense?

 

[Karl_K]

Thanks for your feedback @Karl_K and @lovedogs
I guess I was just wondering if maybe the AGS tolerances for things like cut grade (symmetry, etc) had gotten any tighter in the last couple of decades. I would assume cutting methods have improved so maybe standards have changed? Does that make sense?

It would likely get ags0 under today's system which is stricter on cut and pretty much the same on the other factors.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Would not hesitate to use it - looks great!

 

[Kim N]

Your stone has beautiful proportions. It sounds like it would be lovely as a side stone.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Pre 2005 AGS had a flawed system for cut grading - but your stone is in the sweet spot.
The shallow combinations were too shallow and the steep deep were very bad.
They seemed not to be aware that increasing girdle thickness increases optimal table size so a slightly thick girdle suits a 58% - 59% table. Size also matters.
These are the best representations I could find of the old system:

 

[niteowlsam]

Pre 2005 AGS had a flawed system for cut grading - but your stone is in the sweet spot.
The shallow combinations were too shallow and the steep deep were very bad.
They seemed not to be aware that increasing girdle thickness increases optimal table size so a slightly thick girdle suits a 58% - 59% table. Size also matters.
These are the best representations I could find of the old system:

Thanks @Garry H (Cut Nut)! That’s very helpful. Also, it’s good to know that we picked an excellent stone 20 years ago (even by today’s standards) when we had little knowledge of diamonds.