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
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