Misuse of AGS 0/0/0 ???

[kaigun02]

PSers,

I noticed a definition of what appears to be a trademarked term and at least one vendor who claimed to sell AGS Triple Zeros with a very different description of the triple zero term.

Many of us consumers don''t realize that AGS grades color and clarity on a number scale. Or, we may have seen it in a report, but then forget after looking at 20 GIA reports for every one AGS report and constantly using the more common terminology. My interpretation of the AGS Triple Zero, in GIA language, is a D/FL/Excellent Cut (with the obvious caveat that an AGS 0 is more restrictive than GIA excellent). Meanwhile, I''ve seen at least one vendor advertise AGS 000 as meaning AGS 0 EX/EX (polish/symmetry). Now, I''m no grader, but I''d say you have a better than average shot at an AGS 0 also having excellent polish and symmetry. Especially since, as I understand the grading, AGS weights polish and symmetry rather heavily (as compared to other labs) into their overall cut score.

Am I witnessing a trademark infringement?

-J

 

[Regular Guy]

Others may respond better..but at least part of the challenge is with AGS'' having modified their system so darned much over the years. I''ve not gone to their site to confirm, but believe one definition they may maintain is that of 0s for all of cut, color & clarity, but based on what I''m guessing is their own deference to their dealers if nothing else, the additional zeros have been lent to polish & symmetry with usage that is broadly accepted over the years.

At this time, I think a smart option is to seek a 0 for light performance, value when a zero for polish is not the zero for that, and even seek out a very good for the savings in that category...and to separately, shop for whatever grade you wish for color and clarity as well, and where an F and VS1 are not only pretty darn good, but as high as I''d be interested in paying for.

That said, the triple zero for cut, color & clarity at least also exists, may be recognized still for the best, and although you''d pay a premium to get it, for some people, this is worth it, and I will yield to them...

 

[Rhino]

Hi kaigun,

Good observeration. When AGS graded diamonds began gaining popularity (late 90''s/early 2000) they were initially referred to as "triple ideals" gaining the "Ideal" designation for polish, symmetry & proportions. Proportions being a factor GIA was not examining or reporting. Shortly after "triple ideal" and "triple 0" became interchangeable terms among trades people and as you note ... wrongly so because an original Triple 0 is exactly as you say. D/IF/Ideal cut grade. You may be interested to learn that since this term "triple 0" became so associated with the AGS labs they have in fact incorporated this into their more recent reports after 2005. You will now see listed on an AGS Report three "0"''s under cut information.

Light Performance "0"
Proportion Factors "0"
Finish "0".

A triple ideal cut.

 

[John P]

A wee bit of 'au contraire,' mon Rhinoceros.

RG is dead-on when he talks about multiple format changes. Brace yourselves for a historical rundown...

- - - - -

In 1996 when AGS introduced the proportions-based DQD the "Triple-Zero" was defined as 0s in cut, color, clarity (Ideal-D-FL/IF). But diamond dealers saw “Ideal, Ideal, Ideal” grouped in the area of cut (see '1996-2005' below) and started calling any diamond with AGS Ideal cut a triple-zero.

I asked AGSL about it in 2005 and received this email:

>

From 2005-2007 the AGS “rolled with it” on the performance-based DQD, grouping cut category 0s in light performance, proportions and finish together (see '2005-2007' below).

But on the 2007-2009 DQD the AGS moved the cut 0s to a separate flap on the right side of the report. This was intentional, so that only cut, color, clarity zeros appeared together on the main document (see '2007-2009' below). During this time the AGS lab website published the page kaigun linked to - reverting to the original 1996 definition of "Triple-Zero."

http://www.agslab.com/ags_0_10_diamond_grading_system.php

0/0 - 1.000 carat. in the american gem society diamond grading standards, this would be known as the famed triple zero™>>

That was then...this is now...

The AGS most recently launched the Platinum report (see 'Present' below). There are two notable changes:

· The cut zeros are grouped together (again) like they were from 1996-2007.
· The cut categories have reverted to light performance, polish, symmetry - omitting proportions in favor of separating the finish grades (that is a whole 'nother story).

Question: With the cut 0s grouped together again will the AGS again “roll with" the trade calling any AGS Ideal cut a triple zero? And what about Naomi?

- - - - -

No doubt you'll continue to hear different usages. It’s hard to blame anyone with the changes-over-time.

Personally I prefer to think of triple-zero as the original, puritanical "Ideal-D-FL" but many people I know use it to describe any AGS Ideal cut. That's cool. They're probably not aware of the origins and changes - just repeating common usage as they have heard or learned it.

With the heinous amount of misinformation and dilution of standards “out there” I think this is a negligible issue, but it’s nice that you brought it up kaigun; the history may be interesting to people.

 

[stone-cold11]

John, nice graphic and history lesson.

 

[Lorelei]

GREAT post Sir J!!! Very useful to refer to and to link it for others.

 

[Rhino]

LOL ... so much for my nut shell version.

And John ... what about Naomi?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/19/2009 1:59:56 PM
Author: Rhino
LOL ... so much for my nut shell version.

And John ... what about Naomi?

Yikes I didn't see yours, also very useful Monsieur Rhinocerous!!!!

 

[John P]

Date: 8/19/2009 1:59:56 PM
Author: Rhino

And John ... what about Naomi?

T-t-t-t-talkin' 'bout m-m-m-my g-g-generation...

 

[Todd Gray]

The changes made by AGSL over the years has certainly contributed to the confusion over the AGS Ideal 0, AGS "triple zero" and AGS-000 terminology. "Back in the day" (1996) the AGS introduced the Diamond Quality Document and the AGS Ideal 0 rating and described polish, symmetry and proportions of an AGS Ideal Cut diamond like this:

Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Proportions: Ideal

Which the industry promptly slanged into "AGS Triple Ideal" and the term was even used by people who worked at the AGS Lab to describe diamonds which were "triple ideal" i.e. received grades of "Ideal" for polish, symmetry and proportions.

And then it dawned on them that this was leading to the very confusion which Kaigun has observed and the AGS made an effort to redefine the proper use of the term AGS Ideal and it is an uphill battle because the term is so ingrained in the industry... Nice catch! Few people "get it"

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/19/2009 1:36:35 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
John, nice graphic and history lesson.

ditto
Thank you Sir John

 

[kaigun02]

John,

As I''m starting to discover is the norm from you, that was quite an informative post. Thanks a lot for clearing everything up.

-J

 

[NeverEndingUpgrade]

Wow, Kaigun, you are special. I asked the same question about a year ago and my post was largely ignored!

Except for Lorelei and Regular Guy, who rock!

My obviously insignificant post

This is just a tongue-in-cheek post, so don't get mad!

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 8/19/2009 1:31:55 PM
Author: John Pollard
A wee bit of 'au contraire,' mon Rhinoceros.

RG is dead-on when he talks about multiple format changes. Brace yourselves for a historical rundown...

- - - - -

In 1996 when AGS introduced the proportions-based DQD the 'Triple-Zero' was defined as 0s in cut, color, clarity (Ideal-D-FL/IF). But diamond dealers saw “Ideal, Ideal, Ideal” grouped in the area of cut (see '1996-2005' below) and started calling any diamond with AGS Ideal cut a triple-zero.

I asked AGSL about it in 2005 and received this email:

<< Technically an AGS triple zero was a diamond with a 0 grade in cut (Ideal), 0 in clarity (IF or Flawless) and 0 in Color (D). AGS 000. However, sellers (internet sellers at first) started calling diamonds with the 0 in cut triple zeros because proportions, polish & symmetry all had to be 0 to get the cut grade AGS 0. AGS tried to address this, but it has entered the modern lexicon. It became an “if you can’t beat them, join them” thing. >>

From 2005-2007 the AGS “rolled with it” on the performance-based DQD, grouping cut category 0s in light performance, proportions and finish together (see '2005-2007' below).

But on the 2007-2009 DQD the AGS moved the cut 0s to a separate flap on the right side of the report. This was intentional, so that only cut, color, clarity zeros appeared together on the main document (see '2007-2009' below). During this time the AGS lab website published the page kaigun linked to - reverting to the original 1996 definition of 'Triple-Zero.'

http://www.agslab.com/ags_0_10_diamond_grading_system.php

<<…a diamond that is the finest cut, colorless, free of inclusions and blemishes, and one carat in weight would be written as: 0/0/0 - 1.000 carat. In the American Gem Society Diamond Grading Standards, this would be known as the famed Triple Zero™ >>

That was then...this is now...

The AGS most recently launched the Platinum report (see 'Present' below). There are two notable changes:

· The cut zeros are grouped together (again) like they were from 1996-2007.
· The cut categories have reverted to light performance, polish, symmetry - omitting proportions in favor of separating the finish grades (that is a whole 'nother story).

Question: With the cut 0s grouped together again will the AGS again “roll with' the trade calling any AGS Ideal cut a triple zero? And what about Naomi?

- - - - -

No doubt you'll continue to hear different usages. It’s hard to blame anyone with the changes-over-time.

Personally I prefer to think of triple-zero as the original, puritanical 'Ideal-D-FL' but many people I know use it to describe any AGS Ideal cut. That's cool. They're probably not aware of the origins and changes - just repeating common usage as they have heard or learned it.

With the heinous amount of misinformation and dilution of standards “out there” I think this is a negligible issue, but it’s nice that you brought it up kaigun; the history may be interesting to people.

Yeah, what he said!

Actually, I find this topic very interesting and am proud to report

that I was aware of most of what John so expertly explained.

And that's why when I refer to my diamond (which is a KILLER beauty, to be sure - but NOT D/IF!) I always say, "AGS-0" One "0"!

Great thread, BTW!