New info on AGS-reports

[Paul-Antwerp]

This morning, we received a batch of stones back from AGS, and to my surprise, the report contains new extra info.

In the side-view of the stone, one can now also find the length of the lower-girdle-facets and the star-size. Personally, I think the info has been put in a very awkward way, but there was probably no other room left to put it.

I will try to upload two examples of reports here.

Live long,

Paul

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

In case you wondered whether there was any rounding to the nearest 5%, here is a stone with 53 star-size and 77 LGF.

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Sorry, here is the upload.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 5/4/2006 11:09:37 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
In case you wondered whether there was any rounding to the nearest 5%, here is a stone with 53 star-size and 77 LGF.

Live long,

Hi Paul

Looking at the graphic of the stone in the AGS report, the star facets appear that they could be a bit smaller than both the 55/45 on the report and your measurement of 53.

Are you saying that they did round up the star facet ratio to 55%?

On the lgf, 78% doesn''t appear to be rounded up from your measurement of 77%?

Is your measurement made with a Helium or Sarin?

Rockdoc

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 5/4/2006 11:19:45 AM
Author: RockDoc

Hi Paul

Looking at the graphic of the stone in the AGS report, the star facets appear that they could be a bit smaller than both the 55/45 on the report and your measurement of 53.

Are you saying that they did round up the star facet ratio to 55%?

On the lgf, 78% doesn''t appear to be rounded up from your measurement of 77%?

Is your measurement made with a Helium or Sarin?

Rockdoc

I do not understand your questions. Two stones, two different reports. No measurement, Sarin, Helium or whatever from our side. I do not understand your questions.

Or do you think that AGS would adjust the graphics too, because of the extra info? I do not think that they do that.

Live long,

 

[RockDoc]

Hi Paul.

When I read the post the first time the scan of the second stone didn''t appear.

I had based the previous post based on only the first stone''s graphic.

This time the second scan of the report showed up.

I had thought the 53 /77 was based on your measurements.

Sorry

Rockdoc

 

[Capitol Bill]

Paul,

Thanks for relaying this worthy bit of news. The AGS should be commended once again for their swift response to industry feedback. What''s really amazing is the short amount of time they take between recognizing a needed adjustment and implementing it. Another major lab I know could learn a thing or three from the AGS''s openness to industry feedback and their apparently streamlined decision-making process. In my view it underscores why the AGS continues to be the leader on diamond grading. I believe much of their success comes from never letting other organizational interests eclipse the science of gemology and the functions of the lab.

Kudos, AGS!

Bill Scherlag

 

[MissAva]

Oh very cool!

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 5/4/2006 3:12:38 PM
Author: Capitol Bill
Paul,

Thanks for relaying this worthy bit of news. The AGS should be commended once again for their swift response to industry feedback. What''s really amazing is the short amount of time they take between recognizing a needed adjustment and implementing it. Another major lab I know could learn a thing or three from the AGS''s openness to industry feedback and their apparently streamlined decision-making process. In my view it underscores why the AGS continues to be the leader on diamond grading. I believe much of their success comes from never letting other organizational interests eclipse the science of gemology and the functions of the lab.

Kudos, AGS!

Bill Scherlag

Well said, Bill.

Now, we should raise the issue with AGS about them reporting every angle, and not only the averages.

Live long,

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 5/4/2006 5:29:29 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Well said, Bill.

Now, we should raise the issue with AGS about them reporting every angle, and not only the averages.

Live long,

LOL! You will end up with a report that only a hundred jewelers in the country will understand, along with a couple hundrep dedicated pricescopers!

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

P.S. I think it is wonderful that AGS provides this quantity of information. Many in the trade do not understand it all, yet, but the time is coming when they will. I too applaud the extra information. The more information the better, even if the majority of jewelers and clients do not use it, it is there for those who choose to do so.

Wink

 

[DiamondExpert]

This is data tranparency at its best! Kudos to AGSL!!

They see an easy, inexpensive, unambiguous way to provide MORE data (ave., but unrounded

) on their existing DQD format to both trade members and to the public...they will figure out how to make it pretty later...nice move!

...now let''s see the ranges on thoses star and lower girdle lengths!!

Most end users really don''t care about these details, but it''s there if you need/want it!

...waiting with interest for the advent of the square EC/"Asscher" grading by this, the most progressive lab. servicing the trade/public!

 

[Rhapsody]

Date: 5/4/2006 5:33:50 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 5/4/2006 5:29:29 PM

Author: Paul-Antwerp


Well said, Bill.


Now, we should raise the issue with AGS about them reporting every angle, and not only the averages.


Live long,

LOL! You will end up with a report that only a hundred jewelers in the country will understand, along with a couple hundrep dedicated pricescopers!


Wink

What would it cost AGS to have that level of information on the reports? I know there are different levels of reports you can buy, how much more would it cost to have an even more comprehensive report? I would imagine a lot of vendors would opt to not have such a detailed analysis if the cost was too high.