Ideal Scope...and AGS 000????

[spartjdawg]

I posted a day ago with a stone I put a deposit on. It is a Gia graded stone and the response I received was get an ideal scope picture of it. How do I do that. And also if this was graded by AGS would it receive a 000?

1.09 SI1 G Round
Polish/Sym EX/EX
Table 55% Depth 61.8%
Crown angle 34.5% Crown Height 15.5%
Pavillion angle and depth 41%, 43.5

 

[Carlotta]

When I put the numbers in the HCA, it falls OUTSIDE the box for AGS000....so probably not AGS000.......

 

[Gypsy]

You ask the vendor for an IS image.

And they give you one.

 

[JulieN]

GIA numbers are rounded, while AGS reports them as they are to the tenth of a degree... so using GIA''s numbers in HCA can be a little off. HCA also doesn''t take minor facets into account, so it /could/ be an AGS-0.

 

[Carlotta]

Date: 6/29/2006 8:39:57 PM
Author: Carlotta
When I put the numbers in the HCA, it falls OUTSIDE the box for AGS000....so probably not AGS000.......

edited to add: it still might be a very nice stone, and the idealscope picture would help determine that.....
(IF they have/have heard of the idealscope.....many local vendors never heard of it....they often confuse it with Hearts and arrows viewer...similar but not THE same!)

 

[Mara]

Here is a list of what receives AGS0 grading...the numbers you listed are within the range posted so it COULD be AGS0.

1. Average crown angle: 33.7° to 35.8°. Anything in this range receives a "0" rating for this portion of the examination; variances above or below receive ratings from "1" to "10."

2. Average pavilion depth: 42.2% to 43.8%. Anything in this range receives a "0" rating for this portion of the examination; variances above or below receive ratings from "1" to "10."

3. Average table diameter percentage: 52.4% to 57.5%. Anything in this range receives a "0" rating for this portion of the examination; variances above or below receive "1" to "10."

4. Average girdle thickness: Thin, medium, slightly thick. Girdles rated as thin, medium or slightly thick receive "0" for this portion of the examination. Very thin girdles receive a "1," extremely thin ones a "7" and thick to extremely thick ones from "3" to "10."

5. Culet size: pointed, very small, small and medium. These receive a "0" rating for this portion of the examination. AGS has defined a new standard: pointed culets are now acceptable to qualify as "0" grades. Culets that are slightly large, large, very large and extremely large merit grades from "1" to "10," depending on size.

6. & 7. Polish & symmetry: With the mathematical factors decided, the lab turns to the more subjective side of evaluating cut. Symmetry evaluations look at off-center culets or tables, out-of-line or wavy girdles, or characteristics with less of an impact, such as facets that are misshapen or don't point properly, as well as "naturals" (unpolished surfaces of the original diamond crystal often visible on a short length of the girdle). Polishing evaluations, meanwhile, examine characteristics such as abrasions, bearded girdles, pits and polish lines. AGS used to use charts that didn't allow any symmetry or polish flaws to be visible under 10X magnification. "But we realized that diamond cutting is an art and not a science," says Yantzer. Consequently, polish and symmetry are now rated by description, with a range from "0" to "10."

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/29/2006 8:44:52 PM
Author: JulieN

GIA numbers are rounded, while AGS reports them as they are to the tenth of a degree... so using GIA's numbers in HCA can be a little off. HCA also doesn't take minor facets into account, so it /could/ be an AGS-0.

This is correct. Based on table, crown and pavilion only (55/34.5/41) this could qualify for AGS0. However, if it is 55/34.5/41.2, rounded to 55/34.5/41, it would not.

Here is a link to general proportions/grading charts. Note minor facets, depth/girdle judgments (both labs) and actual light performance (AGS) influence final grades.

 

[Carlotta]

Date: 6/29/2006 8:50:26 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 6/29/2006 8:44:52 PM
Author: JulieN

GIA numbers are rounded, while AGS reports them as they are to the tenth of a degree... so using GIA''s numbers in HCA can be a little off. HCA also doesn''t take minor facets into account, so it /could/ be an AGS-0.

This is correct. Based on table, crown and pavilion only (55/34.5/41) this could qualify for AGS0. However, if it is 55/34.5/41.2, rounded to 55/34.5/41, it would not.

Here is a link to general proportions/grading charts. Note minor facets, depth/girdle judgments (both labs) and actual light performance (AGS) influence final grades.

Thanks for clarifying....was thinking of something else,a nd didn''t notice that it was a GIA stone......(but it doesn''t show up as AGS000 on Garry''s chart.......)

 

[spartjdawg]

Thanks for all your respones....I was able to do some mor ein depth research and according to the GIAs website that has the AGS 000 standards on there also the cutting standards for 000
Depth 59-63
Table 52.4-57.5
Thin-medium-slightly thick girdle
Crown angle 33.7-35.8
crown height 15-16.2
Pavillion depth of 42.2-43.8
Pavillion angle 40.5-41.2

According to these standards and with the rounding practices GIA uses all angles fall within 000 standards.

 

[belle]

Date: 7/1/2006 3:48:12 PM
Author: spartjdawg
Thanks for all your respones....I was able to do some mor ein depth research and according to the GIAs website that has the AGS 000 standards on there also the cutting standards for 000
Depth 59-63
Table 52.4-57.5
Thin-medium-slightly thick girdle
Crown angle 33.7-35.8
crown height 15-16.2
Pavillion depth of 42.2-43.8
Pavillion angle 40.5-41.2

According to these standards and with the rounding practices GIA uses all angles fall within 000 standards.

you got ags 000 standards off of the gia website???

btw...angles ''falling within ags000 standards'' and actually getting an ags000 grading are two different things.

if a diamond could potentially grade ags000, chances are, it would be sent to ags for grading and not gia.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/1/2006 3:48:12 PM
Author: spartjdawg
Thanks for all your respones....I was able to do some mor ein depth research and according to the GIAs website that has the AGS 000 standards on there also the cutting standards for 000
Depth 59-63
Table 52.4-57.5
Thin-medium-slightly thick girdle
Crown angle 33.7-35.8
crown height 15-16.2
Pavillion depth of 42.2-43.8
Pavillion angle 40.5-41.2

According to these standards and with the rounding practices GIA uses all angles fall within 000 standards.

The info you've provided is the old AGS 0 "Ideal" range. Since 2005 their 0 light performance grade is more strict numbers-wise than the above. Can you share the GIA link where you found this info?

A minor technical detail you may find of interest: AGS '000' refers to three critera; light performance, proportions and finish details (polish/symmetry). The only way for a diamond to receive three zeros is for it to go to AGS labs, as their 'ideal' ratings differ from outside standards and can only be awarded there. Using these here.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/1/2006 4:31:24 PM
Author: belle

Date: 7/1/2006 3:48:12 PM

if a diamond could potentially grade ags000, chances are, it would be sent to ags for grading and not gia.

Lots of super-ideal diamonds that would easily get AGS0 by AGS are sent to GIA all the time.

 

[spartjdawg]

John, You are so Helpful. All of you are thank you very much. Looking at your charts for a table of 55% My diamond seems to have in common ratios with the AGS AND GIA standards. Again as you said earlier this is all dependant upon how the numbers were rounded. Thank you so much I have a much better understanding of everything now. And i will look for that website for you.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/1/2006 6:42:53 PM
Author: strmrdr

Lots of super-ideal diamonds that would easily get AGS0 by AGS are sent to GIA all the time.

True... Along with all the steep/deeps (rim shot!)

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/1/2006 6:48:03 PM
Author: spartjdawg
John, You are so Helpful. All of you are thank you very much. Looking at your charts for a table of 55% My diamond seems to have in common ratios with the AGS AND GIA standards. Again as you said earlier this is all dependant upon how the numbers were rounded. Thank you so much I have a much better understanding of everything now. And i will look for that website for you.

Spartjdawg, PS is a great community. You're quite welcome. Finding a diamond that falls into both GIA and AGS top proportions predictions is a good start. You're ahead of most people out in the 'real world' for sure. Thanks for seeking the link.

 

[spartjdawg]

John, I might have been mistaken, but i found similar charts on http://www.usacerteddiamonds.com/heartsandarrows.html
and
http://www.drostes.com/pavilion_depth.html

If i come up with the other website ill send it to ya

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/1/2006 6:56:36 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 7/1/2006 6:42:53 PM

Author: strmrdr


Lots of super-ideal diamonds that would easily get AGS0 by AGS are sent to GIA all the time.

True... Along with all the steep/deeps (rim shot!)

unless they are steep/deep and painted, then paying AGS to hide the cut info brings the higher price. 2 points :}

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/1/2006 7:01:27 PM
Author: spartjdawg
John, I might have been mistaken, but i found similar charts on http://www.usacerteddiamonds.com/heartsandarrows.html

and

http://www.drostes.com/pavilion_depth.html


If i come up with the other website ill send it to ya

John is currect that is the old AGS system, the websites are out of date.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/1/2006 7:12:13 PM
Author: strmrdr

unless they are steep/deep and painted, then paying AGS to hide the cut info brings the higher price. 2 points :}

Yeah? Well once you've come out of your den and seen enough painted to quit yer 'stereotyping ways' we'll ball again. Until then you're playing computer games while I'm on the actual courts m'lad!

(3 pointer)

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/1/2006 7:25:21 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 7/1/2006 7:12:13 PM

Author: strmrdr


unless they are steep/deep and painted, then paying AGS to hide the cut info brings the higher price. 2 points :}

Yeah? Well once you''ve come out of your den and seen enough painted to quit yer ''stereotyping ways'' we''ll ball again. Until then you''re playing computer games while I''m on the actual courts m''lad!

(3 pointer)

Which is Brian on record as saying are his favorite? (3 points)

Btw: I should call a foul on getting personal but ill let ya have the points. But lets not go there again :}