I should probably know the answer to this...

[Lynn B]

OK... a little embarrassed about asking this... I think I should probably know it... (and I *think* I might... just not sure!)...

Another recent post got me thinking about AGS-000 graded diamonds. Let's assume a particular diamond scores a little above 2 on the HCA, or falls out of what we may *usually* think of as an ideal parameter, maybe a little more overall depth, or a little steeper/shallower pav and/or crown angles... than we PS'ers generally look for... BUT the diamond still earns the 000 grade.

Are diamonds graded at AGSL exclusively by the evaluation of the "numbers" alone... or does a warm, living, breathing

PERSON at the lab actually LOOK AT/inspect each (potential 000) diamond for optimum performance and... *overall beauty*?

In other words, similar to the personal "visual approval" that ES stones get by Brian at WF, do AGS-0 stones get something similar by *someone* at the lab?

I think *yes*... but... as I mentioned, I wouldn't bet my cat's life on it!

THANK YOU!

 

[strmrdr]

NO
The grade is assigned by scanning the stone and running the data thru the software.

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 8/23/2007 2:44:37 PM
Author: strmrdr
NO
The grade is assigned by scanning the stone and running the data thru the software.

Really?! No rating "visual" anywhere by *anyone*?!! EEK, my cat is sure glad that I didn''t bet his life on it!!!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/23/2007 2:46:09 PM
Author: Lynn B

Date: 8/23/2007 2:44:37 PM
Author: strmrdr
NO
The grade is assigned by scanning the stone and running the data thru the software.

Really?! No rating ''visual'' anywhere by *anyone*?!! EEK, my cat is sure glad that I didn''t bet his life on it!!!

Not for the cut grade.
Color and clarity are graded by humans.

 

[hgau999]

Yes, I think I''ve read some where some times that''s why GIA rated excellent diamonds sometimes look better than AGS graded diamonds which have ad ideally better pedigree. Because GIA grading also require an actual person grading the diamond. Correct me if I''m wrong.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/23/2007 2:44:37 PM
Author: strmrdr
NO
The grade is assigned by scanning the stone and running the data thru the software.

Strm where did you hear that? According to Jim Caudill everything assessed by machine is visually verified by a human being. This is nothing new, it was asked in 2005.

They are also doing actual ASET photos of diamonds for DQCs. Discussion continues about whether to use them on other reports.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/23/2007 3:32:00 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 8/23/2007 2:44:37 PM
Author: strmrdr
NO
The grade is assigned by scanning the stone and running the data thru the software.

Strm where did you hear that? According to Jim Caudill everything assessed by machine is visually verified by a human being. This is nothing new, it was asked in 2005.

They are also doing actual ASET photos of diamonds for DQCs. Discussion continues about whether to use them on other reports.

Impossible too verify the grade by visual inspection which is why they made the software available.
Face up aset 30 and 40 would only be 1/90th of the data used.
Could catch gross errors using ASET by eye or photo face up but you aren't going to catch borderline calls that way.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/23/2007 3:52:26 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/23/2007 3:32:00 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 8/23/2007 2:44:37 PM
Author: strmrdr
NO
The grade is assigned by scanning the stone and running the data thru the software.

Strm where did you hear that? According to Jim Caudill everything assessed by machine is visually verified by a human being. This is nothing new, it was asked in 2005.

They are also doing actual ASET photos of diamonds for DQCs. Discussion continues about whether to use them on other reports.

Impossible too verify the grade by visual inspection which is why they made the software available.
Face up aset 30 and 40 would only be 1/90th of the data used.
Could catch gross errors using ASET by eye or photo face up but you aren't going to catch borderline calls that way.

Agreed. Just want to be sure to note that a cut grade isn't assigned without a "warm person" handling the stone pretty thoroughly - during polish/symmetry in particular. That can be said for any reputable lab I presume.

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/23/2007 2:32:58 PM
Author:Lynn B
OK... a little embarrassed about asking this... I think I should probably know it... (and I *think* I might... just not sure!)...

Another recent post got me thinking about AGS-000 graded diamonds. Let''s assume a particular diamond scores a little above 2 on the HCA, or falls out of what we may *usually* think of as an ideal parameter, maybe a little more overall depth, or a little steeper/shallower pav and/or crown angles... than we PS''ers generally look for... BUT the diamond still earns the 000 grade.

Are diamonds graded at AGSL exclusively by the evaluation of the ''numbers'' alone... or does a warm, living, breathing

PERSON at the lab actually LOOK AT/inspect each (potential 000) diamond for optimum performance and... *overall beauty*?

In other words, similar to the personal ''visual approval'' that ES stones get by Brian at WF, do AGS-0 stones get something similar by *someone* at the lab?

I think *yes*... but... as I mentioned, I wouldn''t bet my cat''s life on it!

THANK YOU!

They just took a giant step forwards towards your concern...

Time will tell....

Interested in some reading... "Dubai Launches World’s First Fully Automated Color Grading Reports"

Link: http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullEditorial.asp

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 8/23/2007 4:55:36 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 8/23/2007 3:52:26 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/23/2007 3:32:00 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 8/23/2007 2:44:37 PM
Author: strmrdr
NO
The grade is assigned by scanning the stone and running the data thru the software.

Strm where did you hear that? According to Jim Caudill everything assessed by machine is visually verified by a human being. This is nothing new, it was asked in 2005.

They are also doing actual ASET photos of diamonds for DQCs. Discussion continues about whether to use them on other reports.

Impossible too verify the grade by visual inspection which is why they made the software available.
Face up aset 30 and 40 would only be 1/90th of the data used.
Could catch gross errors using ASET by eye or photo face up but you aren't going to catch borderline calls that way.

Agreed. Just want to be sure to note that a cut grade isn't assigned without a 'warm person' handling the stone pretty thoroughly - during polish/symmetry in particular. That can be said for any reputable lab I presume.

John,
THANK YOU for your replies. So do you think it would be reasonable to say that a diamond could potentially be rejected from the AGS-0 grade by APPEARANCE alone, even if all the numbers met "criteria"? (Obviously the social worker in me is desperate for some basic HUMAN TOUCH in this process!!!

) Thanks,
Lynn

 

[FireGoddess]

Hmmmm, I wonder if Lynn''s got a project brewing in the pot....

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 8/23/2007 5:16:56 PM
Author: DiaGem
They just took a giant step forwards towards your concern...

Time will tell....

Interested in some reading... ''Dubai Launches World’s First Fully Automated Color Grading Reports''

Link: http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullEditorial.asp

Hmmmm, interesting link, THANK YOU for sharing!

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 8/23/2007 5:36:50 PM
Author: FireGoddess
Hmmmm, I wonder if Lynn's got a project brewing in the pot....

FG,

Haha!

Believe me --- I WISH!!! It's true, a newbie's recent post really did trigger this question. The diamond he was looking at scored 2.2 on the HCA, was a tad "deep" and faced up a little small for its size, but it was (is) an AGS-0... and I got to wondering about the question I asked above. I figured it might help relieve his anxiety about the stone if I could tell him that *someone* had eyeballed that stone and validated the strict cut grade... but I thought I better run it by our experts, first!!!

So anyway, bottom line... no projects for me in the works right now.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/23/2007 5:35:57 PM
Author: Lynn B

John,
THANK YOU for your replies. So do you think it would be reasonable to say that a diamond could potentially be rejected from the AGS-0 grade by APPEARANCE alone, even if all the numbers met ''criteria''? (Obviously the social worker in me is desperate for some basic HUMAN TOUCH in this process!!!

) Thanks,
Lynn

No and yes. In this sense the new system is better than the old.

In the old system, only a few measurements determined the proportions/cut grade. As you know, two diamonds at T57 61D P40.4 C33.0 on a grading report may have completely different appearances because minor facets, stars, brillianteering and optical symmetry. These were unaccounted for in the old system so two diamonds that ''looked'' identical to the metric could look a bit different in actual appearance. Of course, at the time it was still the strictest cut grading system in use by a major lab.

That was then. This is now.

In AGSL''s new system the entire diamond is scanned and all 57 facets (rb example) are assessed by a ray-tracing engine (something like 40,000 rays - someone may know the exact number) both to 30 and 40 degrees of obstruction as well as tilted to four compass points. 3D scanners are not perfect yet but with so much information they''re close enough to place a diamond inside a cut grade. It is a far more robust and diamond-specific system than the few averaged numbers that were previously used.

What this means is that two diamonds could have the same ''broad'' numbers but score differently... AGS produced cutting guidelines for manufacturers indicate what proportions combinations are predicted to receive 0, 1, 2, etc. in light performance. But the AGS measures every stone on its own merits. In today''s scenario the propotions I gave before (T57 61D P40.4 C33.0) are at a borderline between AGS0 and AGS1. What this means is that diamonds of those proportions which come in with appropriate minors, brillianteering and optical symmetry will earn the 0 in light performance. Diamonds of those proportions which have poorly chosen minors, brillianteering, etc., will fall to 1 (or lower) light performance.

Unless there are clarity or fluorescence issues (which are judged elsewhere in the process) two diamonds with identical scans - meaning every facets and angle was the same - should perform identically. But in real life it would be a rarified event to have two diamonds so identical. Every diamond has soft and hard sides, graining and different needs when running on the wheel so, like snowflakes, there are always micro-differences.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/23/2007 4:55:36 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Agreed. Just want to be sure to note that a cut grade isn't assigned without a 'warm person' handling the stone pretty thoroughly - during polish/symmetry in particular. That can be said for any reputable lab I presume.

Yea I should have said the light performance grade vs overall cut grade.
By the wording of the question my mind went directly to the proportions which are not eye graded, while the finish score(sym/polish) is along with color and clarity.
Good catch.