My new Princess AGS2 with pictures!

[Ukieza]

For all that have been curious about the new cut princess shaped diamonds. Here''s another one. It''s not huge but it''s what I want!

First, specs....
Light Performance : AGS-2 (Very Good)
Proportion factors: AGS-0 (Ideal)
Finish: AGS-0 (Ideal)
Polish: AGS-0 (Ideal)
Symmetry: AGS-0 (Ideal)

Color: D
Clarity: VS1
Weight: 0.510
Fluorescence: Negligible

Diameters: 4.43 x 4.44
Depth: 3.15
Total depth: 71.0%
Table%: 69%
Crown angle: 35.6°
Pavilion angle: 39.8°
Pavilion depth: 58.8%
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Culet: Pointed

And the pictures!

-Ukieza

 

[Ukieza]

Another regular shot.

 

[Ukieza]

And another, this one has a different direct and indirect reflected light.

 

[Ukieza]

Idealscope. New batteries in the light source so the pictures are a little over-exposed.

 

[Ukieza]

Oops, had problem with the pic. IdealScope.

 

[Ukieza]

ASET image. Note that this again has the super power light source! Also note that this is an AGS2 in light performance. This is what I wanted and didn''t care to have it recut for better performance. My girlfriend claims she doesn''t want to be blinded and wants to see the diamond.. so this is good then.... even though the light performance looks great according to this pic... at least I think so. Anyone have any opinions?

-Ukieza

 

[Ukieza]

Crown H&A viewer image.

 

[Ukieza]

H&A viewer pavilion.

 

[belle]

very nice ukieza!! do you have it already?

 

[Ukieza]

So, without trying to promote any company that''s not my intent. My intent is to show what I got and see what other people think of it. The pictures were taken by Gary Dutton in a hurry. Even though he claims that the pictures suffer from focus and exact face up angle issues, I think they are beautiful! He had the stone for probably less than 8 hours and it was sent off to me! So, like I said, he didn''t have much time with the stone to really take a lot of time getting things perfect! Thanks again Gary! I can''t wait to see this diamond. It''ll hopefully be here tomorrow morning!

Thanks again!
Ukieza

 

[Kaleigh]

It looks awesome, congrats!!!!!

 

[belle]

cool! i hope you''ll be taking some of your own pics (tomorrow) to share with us!

 

[Giangi]

That''s a gorgeous stone... and a D/VS1!!

Congrats, it''s really pretty!

 

[mrssalvo]

oh it''s gorgeous. it''s going to look so awesome in your setting

 

[MissAva]

WOW! With that stone in the setting she is going to faint!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hi Ukieza,

I am sorry that it took you so long to get the stone. The whole process of cutting, certifying and branding takes a lot of time. Luckily, Gary was much faster in handling this stone. He must have had it in the office for only a few hours.

Also congrats to Gary for the nice pics, especially of the ASET-scope. I am amazed that one can take pictures through the handheld device, and Gary seems to be the only one succeeding in this. Kudos for that.

You know, when we were planning this stone, the rough stone did not have sufficient depth to go for our usual combo of proportions. That is why we experimented and chose for a combination in a very small area of AGS-0 on the AGS cutting guidelines. We must have just missed the target, and with 0, 1 and 2 being very close to one another in that area, we just got Very Good as a grade, and not the targeted Ideal.

Enjoy,

 

[strmrdr]

If that is an ags2 then it definatly proves what Paul has been saying about most of the older princess cuts being AGS4 or worse.
I looks better than a lot(most?) of the top pre ags spec princess cuts.
Congrates on an awesome diamond!

 

[Ukieza]

Thanks! So far I''m happy with the pics. Now I just can''t wait to see the stone. I''ve been checking the UPS site every so often to see if they got it close to being delievered. Then it''s off to the races to go pick it up, get it appraised and then off to the jeweler for setting.

Thanks everyone, especially Paul and Gary!
Ukieza

 

[icekid]

wow, AGS2?! that stone looks amazing... i am sure she will love it!

 

[Ukieza]

I sure hope so. Thanks!

Ukieza

 

[Ukieza]

Yeah! I have it in my hand. I have no way to take pictures of it today but hopefully when I get it appraised he'll take some. It looks great to the eye. I haven't had a chance to really sit and look at it though. Just picked it up and currently at work. I don't want to take it out of my back pocket and plop it up on my desk so people can see what I'm looking at when they pass my cube.

Anyway, thanks again!
Ukieza

P.S. Thanks Gary and Paul! You guys are the bomb! (that means good) Now I can't wait for the AGS cert to show up!

 

[belle]

awesome!!

definitely keep that baby safe! and post pictures soooooon!

 

[Ukieza]

Good news and strange news all in the same.

The good news... Well, I just got back from the appraiser. He raved how nice it was and was impressed with the diamond. The diamond is graded by AGS as a D VS1. He graded it as a D-E VVS1 because it looked so clean. He has a GG, NJA and AGA (I know GG but not the others) so I was fairly confident that he did a good job and like I said, he was impressed. He hasn''t seen the chamfered on the points before so that was interesting to him. I told him it''s for protection. I think he grades mostly colored gemstones and not too many princess shaped diamonds. Oh, I also told him about the problems with the first jeweler I was working with and it really blew his mind. He''s heard pretty good things about that jeweler... well, he couldn''t believe they lost me. *shrugs*

Then the strange news. I took the diamond to my new jeweler so he can send it off to get it set into my ring after they cast it. He sends it to a guy in LA. Well, I told him that I got it appraised and he looked at me funny and asked why. I said, "insurance reasons", then he said I''m suppose to do that after the setting. I said I was going to do that too. He asked who did the appraisal. When I told him, he didn''t have great things to say about the appraiser. Supposedly he''s known him for 20 years. The new jeweler also ranted about how AGS is sticking their foot in their mouth with the light performance and how it''s a big joke in the whole industry. He feels GIA is the only lab you should consider. From the multiple hours I spent reading, it just sounds like he''s a supporter of the GIA in the whole certification lab war. *shrugs* What baffled him is how a diamond with ideal in all categories could possibly get a 2 in light performance. Thinks it''s stupid. I said, actually, it''s in the numbers below. The table, pavilion and crown numbers have a lot to do with it. He was like.. "yeah but... a 2?" I shruged. He''s been making instruments for viewing diamonds for longer than most have been in the business so I''m sure he''s seen a lot of diamonds. He also discredited the table size. Says it looks bigger than the value listed.

Anyway... I''m not sure if I should be concerned about the quality of my overall ring or what. One thing that comforts me is that he''s having it outsourced to another place so basically is a middle man. This discrediting the appraiser and AGS didn''t really improve my image of this jeweler. Like he feels I''m an idiot for going AGS. *shrugs* I like measurements rather than my unexperienced eye telling me information about the diamond. Instruments from people that have been in the industry a long time and that are stood behind. After his rant about AGS being dumb, I asked him if it''s a good diamond and if it looks good, he said, "well yeah, it''s beautiful." *shrugs* Maybe he''s just upset that he didn''t get to sell me the centerstone.

Well, I''m dumbfounded and not certain about the appraisal now because of the jewelers lack of confidence in my appraiser. The appraiser gave me great feedback and had a lot of the numbers (measurements) pretty close to what AGS is saying. So that made me feel good. Not to mention the price he gave me that I''d pay for that diamond from local jewelers was higher than I did pay. So, again, another good thing. Told me I wouldn''t find many diamonds like this one. Which says kudos to Paul''s cuts in my eyes. So I''m satisfied there, but with a little doubt because the jeweler. *shrugs*

What do you think? Sorry it was such a long post.
Ukieza

 

[valeria101]

Date: 6/23/2005 4:57:19 PM
Author: Ukieza

One thing that comforts me is that he''s having it outsourced to another place so basically is a middle man.

This is customary given that jewelry shops are not always large comapnies able to handle a long processing chain - if your ring is getting through CAD, than not every shop will have the tools. There''s no good or bad in it - just the way things work. Even if the guys who actually make it havea shop (as opposed to working for retailers only), there might be no significant advantage in wrking directly with them. Your jeweler provides onemore step of quality controll.

The rest of the GIA/AGS scoring and grading debate sounds like an exchange of opinions from your description. You have chosen to go for AGS''s analysis, but this does not mean that theseare iron clad values. AGS has been revising their grading (for rounds) and chances are their new grading for princess cuts will be revised at some point. Why not

If the wording of those grades goes against the sales experience of your jeweler, his is an interesting opinion to hear.

Honestly, that relation between finish, proportions and performance grades, jumped right out the first time I looked over this thread. I think it is worth pointing out, because those separate criteria of cut grading have been confounded in every possible way between the several cut grading systems (''Scopes and reposrts) talked about on this forum.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 6/23/2005 4:57:19 PM
Author: Ukieza
What baffled him is how a diamond with ideal in all categories could possibly get a 2 in light performance. Thinks it''s stupid.

I think that the fact that AGS just launched their new grading system in May causes some confusion. If one does not really follow up, some things may look weird.

A possible reason for the confusion might be the following. In the old AGS grading system for rounds, cut comprised of three categories: proportions, polish and symmetry.

In the new system, polish and symmetry are both mentioned, as well as their new combination name: finish.

The grade for proportions is not used anymore, but there is a new grade for proportion factors, which sounds about the same, but which is something completely different. Proportions used to be a grade on ''light performance'' based on numbers only, whereas the new ''proportion factors'' is a grade which handles points like durability (extremely thin girdle, very shallow crown), fish-eye, and so on. Thus ''proportion factors'' is NOT the old proportions.

And the new grade for ''light performance'' could be regarded as the substitute for the old grade of ''proportions''. With this difference, that the new system is much more advanced. And in rounds, as far as we can judge from the information released by GIA, a new-style AGS-2 will still be in the GIA-top grade.

Hope that this info helped,

Live long,

 

[Ukieza]

Paul,

Yeah, I''m not too worried about this but my local jeweler guy just went off. He was irritated about the whole thing and I think it was mostly he was frustrated that I didn''t buy from him. *shrugs* Or he just thinks that AGS is suckering people into believing they are better. Again, he just has a strong opinion. It''s the old "Chevy" vs "Ford" battle we always have here in the states. Which is better? Chevy of course. hehe.

Thanks for the clarification on proportion factors though. I didn''t know what those values really meant and which are part of the other. So, finish in the new grading is just the combination of polish and symmetry. So if I would have a diamond that had a 1 in polish and 3 in symmetry it''d have a 3 for finish? I understand now. (if my example is correct.)

Thanks again Paul!
Ukieza

 

[Rhino]

If you don''t mind me asking what is it about this stone that caused it to get a 2?

 

[strmrdr]

It sounds like your getting caught in the all out war that is raging in the industry right now.
Mostly old school stuck in their ways people vs people that want to move things forward.

The part that gets me is this:
"I asked him if it''s a good diamond and if it looks good, he said, "well yeah, it''s beautiful."
Its a beautiful diamond so does the ags vs gia debate really matter at that point?



You have done your homework and the only opinion on the stone that counts is yours.
Its a shame when consumers get dragged into the industry war.
All we want is awesome diamonds at reasonable prices with great customer service from someone we can trust.
Is that too hard for the industry to do?
.
.
.
.
.
.
So far it sure looks like it is in some circles.

 

[Ukieza]

Rhino, it got a 2 because of light performance. Everything else was a 0. Which, for my purpose, is perfect. She wants a diamond that doesn''t blind her. But, as Gary stated when he saw it. Sure doesn''t look like it has any problems with light performance. (or something close to that)

Now, it''s just time to wait for the setting and rest of the ring to be finished. this takes too long!

Ukieza

 

[Rhino]

With regards to the metrics of "light performance" there are 4 factors taken into account from what I have read. Those being brightness, dispersion, leakage & contrast. What I would like to know is did one of these metrics take a 2 point hit or 1 point in 2 metrics? I have an educated guess what metrics those might be but I'd like to hear it from the horses mouth if thats possible. Ie. if a diamond gets a 2 because of light performance what lack of optical factors contributed to that grade? Dispersion? Brightness? Contrast? Apparently this is not answered on the report itself. How do we find the answer to this question beyond going directly to AGS? Curious.