our own John Pollard in a AGS podcast advertisement

[WinkHPD]

While many people are tying to make different points here, I want to make a simple comment that has been demonstrated to me time and time and time again.

When I sit down with a client and offer them choices of stones, the vast majority choose the AGS 0 cut rounds and princesses, no matter what else I show them. (With an occassional AGS 1 or 2 because of polish or symmetry, but always with AGS 0 light return.)

Why. Because they are the most beautiful diamonds that I show them.

As a Jeweler I both trust and depend on the AGS to be consistent in helping me know which stones I can safely buy and sell. I never ever never ever ever get a lemon with an AGS 0 cut diamond.

I love them, my clients love them and we both trust them.

For me it is that simple. All of the other study that I do is because I love to learn and to be able to share with my clients, but my staff, who know practically nothing about diamonds other than they love them can sell them confidently because of the AGS 0 cut grade. If you have questions, they will defer them to me, but if you want to place the order because you have looked at the paper already, they can help you with ease and confidence.

By the way, my staff are not hired as sales people, one is my administrative assistant, and the other our World Wide Distribution Coordinator, and one in New Jersey (I am in Idaho) answers my email and has learned so much about diamonds that she is now also selling many of our diamonds.

The AGS Diamond Quality Document is an invaluable tool for me and I am grateful that they are here doing the heavy lifting, not only for me, but for my clientele. I for one give them strong marks and kudos for making what would be an impossible task without them to be in fact quite simple and easy.

Do you want to know more about my diamond? Read the report, run the numbers through HCA or Diamcalc or any other tool that you wish. No secrets, no hidden defects, just complete openess about what I have and what any other vendor can have there for the viewing.

So, Sergey, obviously, I disaggree with you strongly about the AGS not being good for the Industry and for the people buying diamonds. Perhaps someday you will have created something equal, and at that time while I will continue to laud and praise the people and the organization that have made my business possible I will welcome your work as well. Until then, I do not accept your concept that they are wrong and need to be forced to change. Show me something that works as well, then I will accept both, but I will not throw out the baby with the bathwater on the promise that something better must come.

Wink

 

[stone_seeker]

Wink - If only all vendors were like you. Many are not as honest about their product.

I once walked into a store on 47th Street with a binder full of information gathered here on PS and other places. I wanted to make an informed decision. I was basically laughed at while the guys behind the counter started talking in another language that I didnt know. These same people had "ideal" cut written all over their merchandise because they know it will help them sell the stone that is probably a dud outside of their nice lights.

There are many vendors that no matter the laws or standards that are set that much rather sell to the person who knows nothing about diamonds. These people will always exist and i''m not sure what can ever be done about that. At a minimum, some form or trademark on the "ideal cut" rating would at least put some teeth behind the many other better business laws that exist to protect the consumer.

 

[Serg]

Re: Perhaps someday you will have created something equal

Wink,

Firstly I want clarify technically what AGS did.

They took nice diamond ( real nice diamond, say “modern Tolkowsky”) like Sample( gave highest performance grade to this diamond)

Any deviation in “LR” metrics ASG uses for penalty.

It is same system like old parametrical cut grade system, but they just change geometrical parameters to “LR”( BLR) parameters ( of course ASG uses 3d model, durability,..)
I just try simply show what AGS did.

LR penalty is much more correct and reasonable than penalty based on deviation geometrical parameters.
But much more correct is not mean Correct.

Because ASG has not correct LR metrics, AGS Can Not grade different cuts in Same Scale ( One rules for All cuts)

We had such system in 1999 , And I and Yuri Showed this Idea to Peter Yantzer in 2000 year( In ASG lab)

I had a lot of suggestions to implement our system for Cut Grading , I rejected all its for one reason . Such system incorrect technically and will create big problems for diamond industry.
But ASG did it

About you and your clients. You can receive exactly same results just cut round diamonds with single set proportion . Any Lab could introduce such system

I will not even try create something equal. I understand what it is wrong way before 2004 year.( At least it is wrong way for me. I do not like give highest performance cut grade for simple Emerald. I do not like block developing new nice fancy cuts what could be much more nice than classical Tolkowsky cut)

I am doing something opposite .

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 3:24:02 AM
Author: Serg

Has Cut Sea more dangers now for consumer than 10 year ago? More sharks? I do not see it.
I see what average diamond is much more better now and consumer is smarter now.
But other problems is become much more critical in last 10 years, After AGS introduces Ideal concept .

You try extinguish a Fire by Kerosene

>

The average diamond is “better now”. There is still a long way to go, and consumers are still being eaten by sharks. Come spend time in our US malls, the LA district or 47th street and I think you’ll agree.

Around 50% (or more) of the diamonds I see in commercial outlets are cut steep/deep, with non-optimal angles or other notable cut problems... Would it be more logical to focus your energy on improving the bad diamonds and irresponsible labs, rather than attacking the AGS?

I realize AGS is a big competitor for you and the cut team. My respect for their system will not interfere with my ability to judge the system you put forward. However, my current focus is to help consumers shopping now, today.

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/14/2008 12:20:53 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 8/14/2008 3:24:02 AM
Author: Serg

Has Cut Sea more dangers now for consumer than 10 year ago? More sharks? I do not see it.
I see what average diamond is much more better now and consumer is smarter now.
But other problems is become much more critical in last 10 years, After AGS introduces Ideal concept .

You try extinguish a Fire by Kerosene

<< Re: I see what average diamond is much more better now... >>

The average diamond is “better now” ******************************.” There is still a long way to go, and consumers are still being eaten by sharks. Come spend time in our US malls, the LA district or 47th street and I think you’ll agree.

Around 50% (or more) of the diamonds I see in commercial outlets are cut steep/deep, with non-optimal angles or other notable cut problems... Would it be more logical to focus your energy on improving the bad diamonds and irresponsible labs, rather than attacking the AGS?

I realize AGS is a big competitor for you and the cut team. My respect for their system will not interfere with my ability to judge the system you put forward. However, my current focus is to help consumers shopping now, today.

John,


ASG is not our competitor. AGS helped a lot to our Business too.
But You are free think anything about our goals and reasons( You do mistake here but it does not matter for us. Hope you can fine more strong arguments )





What is real important, please do not touch Politic here, Please edit your post right now.
We will never agree in politic( big politic), better do not start it even
please back to technical, economic discussion. Just avoid any political statements

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 9:20:08 AM
Author: stone_seeker

I have to add my two cents as a consumer. If you have ever taken a walk down 47th Street between 5th and 6th avenue, you will immediately be accosted by 10-20 vendors trying to sell you something in their window. They use the same tactics used car salesmen use...

It's precisely what I am talking about stone_seeker.

So take the dealers out of the picture and I'd ask: If given a choice, blind, to take delivery of 100 free IGI/EGL/GIA princess cuts or 100 free AGS0 princess cuts (same carat/color/clarity) which choice do you predict would result in the collection with the highest cut quality and overall performance? Same question with rounds.

Put a great dealer into the picture and all of this goes away, since an expert can find the stone (not the paper) that best fits you. But amidst the sharks out there a consumer looking for AGS paper (and GIA to a degree in rounds) is armed with a little shark-repellent.

...I guess all of this is useless until someone (prob wont happen) disallows the use of the word Ideal Cut for stones that arent graded as such by AGS.

You're right, it's not the solution. That horse is out of the barn. “Ideal” rocketed to prominence with consumers thanks to AGS’ introduction of it on grading reports; at the time they were the only major lab grading cut. The lab did not aggressively defend the term, and it became diluted. The current push is to make consumers aware that “AGS Ideal” is different than generic "ideal" (that’s the way they are framing it Strm).

If diamonds were vehicles or drugs (they are for some

) - a product where safety was involved - you can bet standards would be regulated. That's one avenue and several countries have done this for diamond grading. While it sounds logical on the surface it would take a Herculean effort, and who would spearhead and enforce it?

Others are working on solutions. IDCC1 and IDCC2 are intended to generate such solutions:
http://www.idcc2.octonus.com/http://www.idcc2.octonus.com/index.phtml

Here is a task force aiming to establish universal standards:
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/international-diamond-grading-standards-to-be-established.87885/


Frankly the GIA has done a fantastic job of marketing their brand. Their education, publications and tools are everywhere in the trade. The sheer volume of pros who list a GIA diploma in their credentials strengthens the lab by association and GIA alumni are active in many regions. For consumers the GIA has become the undisputed majority shareholder of reputability (in an at-large sense): Sellers with GIA reports hold them up as the best. Sellers with softer reports compare them to GIA; sometimes fraudulently. Sellers who offer AGS reports may mention that GIA & AGS were founded as companion organizations because - even with the strength of AGS cut grading - associating them with the world leader can’t hurt.

They also aggressively work to maintain their visibility to end-users. Blotters, counter-pads, brochures and "how to buy" CDs are going to dealers for the purpose of being visible to consumers. GIA signs and knick-knacks are everywhere in upscale stores (photo below).

Whether one agrees with every aspect of their practices or not, the GIA has been smart in marketing to the trade and consumers. If AGS had been as aggressive in branding "ideal" as an AGS-unique term perhaps there would be less confusion about that term. I'm glad they are trying to make the distinction now.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 11:32:26 AM
Author: Wink

So, Sergey, obviously, I disaggree with you strongly about the AGS not being good for the Industry and for the people buying diamonds. Perhaps someday you will have created something equal, and at that time while I will continue to laud and praise the people and the organization that have made my business possible I will welcome your work as well. Until then, I do not accept your concept that they are wrong and need to be forced to change. Show me something that works as well, then I will accept both, but I will not throw out the baby with the bathwater on the promise that something better must come.

You said that better than I did Wink.

 

[Serg]

re:Would it be more logical to focus your energy on improving the bad diamonds and irresponsible labs, rather than attacking the AGS?


John,

I will give clear ( and I hope reasonable for you) explanation , After you will remove politic statement from your post.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 11:58:52 AM
Author: Serg


Re: Perhaps someday you will have created something equal

Wink,

Firstly I want clarify technically what AGS did.

They took nice diamond ( real nice diamond, say “modern Tolkowsky”) like Sample( gave highest performance grade to this diamond)
Any deviation in “LR” metrics ASG uses for penalty.

It is same system like old parametrical cut grade system, but they just change geometrical parameters to “LR”( BLR) parameters ( of course ASG uses 3d model, durability,..)
I just try simply show what AGS did.

LR penalty is much more correct and reasonable than penalty based on deviation geometrical parameters.
But much more correct is not mean Correct.

Because ASG has not correct LR metrics, AGS Can Not grade different cuts in Same Scale ( One rules for All cuts)

We had such system in 1999 , And I and Yuri Showed this Idea to Peter Yantzer in 2000 year( In ASG lab)

I had a lot of suggestions to implement our system for Cut Grading , I rejected all its for one reason . Such system incorrect technically and will create big problems for diamond industry.
But ASG did it

About you and your clients. You can receive exactly same results just cut round diamonds with single set proportion . Any Lab could introduce such system

I will not even try create something equal. I understand what it is wrong way before 2004 year.( At least it is wrong way for me. I do not like give highest performance cut grade for simple Emerald. I do not like block developing new nice fancy cuts what could be much more nice than classical Tolkowsky cut)

I am doing something opposite.

This post is much more engaging to me than what you have posted previously Serg.

Re: About you and your clients. You can receive exactly same results just cut round diamonds with single set proportion. Any Lab could introduce such system.

Agreed. Same for devices like Gemex, etc. This is very true and I agree that we risk commoditization. However, it doesn’t mean that a system rewarding something beautiful - even if such a system is limited in your opinion - is “wrong.” In the shark-filled sea I still say consumers are benefited by having a lab that enforces strict performance standards.

On this note though, wouldn’t you say that AGS expanded enormously in 2005? After all, tables ranging 47-61% can now possibly earn 0, allowing for a variety of different tastes. Even more tastes are available in the princess metric.

Re: But much more correct is not mean Correct.

I accept this, but AGS “correct” has been proven on many levels. Regardless of whether you think it's the ultimate or not, it's proper to afford respect where it is due. Both the GIA and AGS deserve that respect, in my opinion.

Re: I am doing something opposite .

I applaud you and am interested in where you're going. But please don’t disrespect my chocolate simply because you're concentrating on other flavors.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 12:35:15 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/14/2008 12:20:53 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 8/14/2008 3:24:02 AM
Author: Serg

Has Cut Sea more dangers now for consumer than 10 year ago? More sharks? I do not see it.
I see what average diamond is much more better now and consumer is smarter now.
But other problems is become much more critical in last 10 years, After AGS introduces Ideal concept .

You try extinguish a Fire by Kerosene

<< Re: I see what average diamond is much more better now... >>

The average diamond is “better now” ******************************.” There is still a long way to go, and consumers are still being eaten by sharks. Come spend time in our US malls, the LA district or 47th street and I think you’ll agree.

Around 50% (or more) of the diamonds I see in commercial outlets are cut steep/deep, with non-optimal angles or other notable cut problems... Would it be more logical to focus your energy on improving the bad diamonds and irresponsible labs, rather than attacking the AGS?

I realize AGS is a big competitor for you and the cut team. My respect for their system will not interfere with my ability to judge the system you put forward. However, my current focus is to help consumers shopping now, today.

John,

ASG is not our competitor. AGS helped a lot to our Business too.
But You are free think anything about our goals and reasons( You do mistake here but it does not matter for us. Hope you can fine more strong arguments )

What is real important, please do not touch Politic here, Please edit your post right now.
We will never agree in politic( big politic), better do not start it even
please back to technical, economic discussion. Just avoid any political statements

Serg, I didn''t know it was sensitive. I think many people are aware of the cut team and MSS project, so eventually this will be the case, no? (in a positive way)

I can''t edit the post - time expired - but I will ask Andrey to omit what you highlighted, out of respect for your request.

 

[Serg]

re:Serg, I didn''t know it was sensitive.

John,

It was not sensitive for me at all. It is not my country at least( I hope you belive me here at least. You saw me)

I think It is sensitive( very risky) for PS.

 

[Serg]

re:Would it be more logical to focus your energy on improving the bad diamonds and irresponsible labs, rather than attacking the AGS?

Very good question ,thank you. I thought We explained it here

But it is very important question and I will try do it gain in other words

Bad diamonds and irresponsible labs are not block Innovation . Very often Bad diamond is just step to something new what could be nice

Current round cut is result long evolution. Now evolution round and princess cut is much more difficult process ( and ASG , GIA new cut grading system is important reason for this)

Fortunately ASG became grade Princess after Cutters find nice solutions.
Emerald cut was not so lucky cut .

But what is more important, Entrance ticket for new Fancy cuts is much more expensive now( One of important reason this what ASG can not grade new cuts, but consumers strongly demand reports now )

ASG is not our competitor because we have not task( and I never had goal do any Lab) .

But AGS block Innovation in Cuts. I like Innovation. Innovation is Fan for me . Innovation is Fan for a lot of my clients and Partners . We are work in Diamond Business only because we can do Innovated products.
From other side commodity kill Spirit of diamond . I can say same “not throw out the baby with the bathwater”



If AGS will grade “Any diamond” by same rules, If AGS will change penalty cut grading system to Score system , I will support ASG .
I am happy help ASG do it.

“Any diamond” – I mean here what you can develop new cut today, cut it and send immediately to ASG for ASG cut grading report. What you do not need firstly proof market what this cut is nice, sell Millions such diamonds , Show grading market for AGS and them May be AGS will develop grading system for you cut .
You can cut just one cut and receive AGS cut grading report.
It is my one of goal my ASG critic . And at least Peter Y. Know it very well

 

[Serg]

re:If AGS will change penalty cut grading system to Score system

for example it will give opportunity develop round cut(or princess) with cut grade higher than Current ASG 0
Now commercial reason to improve round and princess cuts is absent. AGS killed this reason. Cutters have not reason more to invest money to improve these two cuts

 

[Serg]

Btw.

0 for clarity is reasonable( No inclusions)
0 for color is reasonable ( No color)

But 0 for Light Return, Fire, Scintillation ???

Gabi T. was right. Industry should change slang and develop special slang to discuss with consumer .
But each Slang has roots and reasons . Penalty system can not create Positive Communication

 

[strmrdr]

lots of ground being covered here:

1: no one owns the word ideal, Every one of those examples you posted John they have a legal and moral right to use the word.
AGS does not own the word ideal, they should use a term they own.
The word ideal is meaningless in today''s market is the best message we can send out at this point.
Pushing the term ideal does nothing to fix the problem.

2: Grading all diamonds on the same scale.
While comparisons can be made in some areas different cuts get their beauty in different ways.
A round and an EC/SE performance is not directly comparable because the criteria for picking the best round is not the same criteria for picking the best EC/SE.
Showing consumers what to look for in each cut is the proper thing to do while not limiting choices.
That is what I am dedicated to with EC/SE cuts.

3: Wink do you sell ideal cut diamonds or do you sell beautiful diamonds?
Send the same stones to GIA and they would still pick the same stones.

4: I love unique and different diamonds. Trying to force diamonds into one narrow zone or box is bad for consumers and the market. (Serg''s point that I agree with 100%).

 

[strmrdr]

John,
I wanted to publicly say I admire and share your zeal for protecting consumers.
I think in this case we disagree what the best way is to do that.
But the goal is the same.
Thank you for the time you spend helping consumers.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 3:14:36 PM
Author: Serg

Now commercial reason to improve round and princess cuts is absent. AGS killed this reason. Cutters have not reason more to invest money to improve these two cuts

I don't think so Sergey. AGS Ideal cuts are beautiful, which is why they enjoy the reputation they have, but less than 2% of diamonds produced are sent to AGS because that level of light performance is hard to acquire; manufacturers prefer to send most goods to other labs.

With such a small footprint I don't think AGS could "kill" anything. You should be more concerned with GIA. Have you followed manufacturing trends? More and more producers are going after the steep/deep end of GIA EX rounds. Unlike cutters who target AGS0, some of these GIA EX are not even good performers. So, if you're chasing manufacturer motives the steep/deep end of GIA is a more worthy target.

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/14/2008 4:23:40 PM
Author: strmrdr
John,
I wanted to publicly say I admire and share your zeal for protecting consumers.
I think in this case we disagree what the best way is to do that.
But the goal is the same.
Thank you for the time you spend helping consumers.

re:But the goal is the same.

One way is defense consumers from sharks , other way to help consumer become stronger then sharks

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 3:03:44 PM
Author: Serg

re:Would it be more logical to focus your energy on improving the bad diamonds and irresponsible labs, rather than attacking the AGS?

Very good question ,thank you. I thought We explained it here

But it is very important question and I will try do it gain in other words

Bad diamonds and irresponsible labs are not block Innovation . Very often Bad diamond is just step to something new what could be nice

Current round cut is result long evolution. Now evolution round and princess cut is much more difficult process ( and ASG , GIA new cut grading system is important reason for this)

Fortunately ASG became grade Princess after Cutters find nice solutions.
Emerald cut was not so lucky cut .

But what is more important, Entrance ticket for new Fancy cuts is much more expensive now( One of important reason this what ASG can not grade new cuts, but consumers strongly demand reports now )

ASG is not our competitor because we have not task( and I never had goal do any Lab) .

But AGS block Innovation in Cuts. I like Innovation. Innovation is Fan for me . Innovation is Fan for a lot of my clients and Partners . We are work in Diamond Business only because we can do Innovated products.
From other side commodity kill Spirit of diamond . I can say same “not throw out the baby with the bathwater”

If AGS will grade “Any diamond” by same rules, If AGS will change penalty cut grading system to Score system , I will support ASG .
I am happy help ASG do it.
“Any diamond” – I mean here what you can develop new cut today, cut it and send immediately to ASG for ASG cut grading report. What you do not need firstly proof market what this cut is nice, sell Millions such diamonds , Show grading market for AGS and them May be AGS will develop grading system for you cut .
You can cut just one cut and receive AGS cut grading report.
It is my one of goal my ASG critic . And at least Peter Y. Know it very well

Re: Bad diamonds and irresponsible labs are not block Innovation . Very often Bad diamond is just step to something new what could be nice

Come on Serg. That’s the science guy talking. You and I both know why steep/deep and vtk-etk are cut, and it has nothing to do with a step to something “nice.”

Re: Current round cut is result long evolution. Now evolution round and princess cut is much more difficult process ( and ASG , GIA new cut grading system is important reason for this)
Fortunately ASG became grade Princess after Cutters find nice solutions. Emerald cut was not so lucky cut .

I have extensive experience with AGS princess grading. Far less with Emerald. I know others agree with you on the Emerald.

But what is more important, Entrance ticket for new Fancy cuts is much more expensive now( One of important reason this what ASG can not grade new cuts, but consumers strongly demand reports now )

Understood.

ASG is not our competitor because we have not task( and I never had goal do any Lab) .

But AGS block Innovation in Cuts. I like Innovation. Innovation is Fan for me . Innovation is Fan for a lot of my clients and Partners . We are work in Diamond Business only because we can do Innovated products. From other side commodity kill Spirit of diamond . I can say same “not throw out the baby with the bathwater”

Perhaps it is more appropriate to say that AGS is a philosophical adversary? Is this correct?

I believe you wish for the trade to break out of the current “round brilliant” (+ also-ran) focus, so innovative new cuts can proliferate and become popular. For this to happen, won’t the fundamental philosophy in buying, trading and planning (mine to sightholder) have to change? Won’t assembly-line polishers have to be retrained for each new cut? If mechanical, won’t it require a complete overhaul of equipment? In order to sell, won’t the paradigms of thousands (at the minimum...millions?) of consumers need to shift to embrace - and commit to paying - for types of new cuts they have never seen before?

If AGS will grade “Any diamond” by same rules, If AGS will change penalty cut grading system to Score system , I will support ASG . I am happy help ASG do it.

Then yes, I''d say you just have philosophical differences.

“Any diamond” – I mean here what you can develop new cut today, cut it and send immediately to ASG for ASG cut grading report. What you do not need firstly proof market what this cut is nice, sell Millions such diamonds , Show grading market for AGS and them May be AGS will develop grading system for you cut . You can cut just one cut and receive AGS cut grading report. It is my one of goal my ASG critic . And at least Peter Y. Know it very well

I appreciate the elaborations Sergey.

Here are some downstream questions: Isn’t this a variation of what Leo, Solasfera, Eighternity, POH and others have tried to do? Won''t any new cut you develop be subject to the same necessary marketing to generate interest? Do you think you will pre-sell millions of such new cuts straight away to finance upstream change? Do you think, after your efforts at manufacture, people will treat such new cuts the same way other proprietary cuts have been treated?

Here are some upstream questions: Let’s say you have designed new cuts, made arrangements with factories willing to cut them and secured financial backing to market them downstream. What shape(s) of rough will be suitable for these cuts? Will the rough shapes be in frequent, steady supply? Will you retain enough weight with the new cuts that it’s feasible for you to compete with the dozens of other manufacturers who will be bidding on that rough for current shapes?

Really, this is reminiscent of questions that came up when parameters for the AGS0 princess came out... Although it was just a different spin on a 30-year old shape it made most of the trade’s brains hurt. The vast majority of manufacturers took a look and then didn''t trouble themselves to produce them, even though they''re admittedly far more beautiful than the “average” princess cuts. At least one manufacturer who made the attempt was unable to train their assembly line workers to rethink polishing habits, and instead took apprentices from another areas and trained them on a new discipline, starting from square 1.

An obstable for both you and AGS is that most manufacturers simply ignore the “sweet spots” of diamond beauty (not just in fancy shapes) and cut whatever is possible (passable?) without polishing away too much rough. All too easy to send their passable commercial cuts to a softer lab...and count on the sharks to sell them.

That''s the reality that we face Sergey. I suggest that you and I largely want the same thing (cut quality). The generations-old weight saving monster and his downstream ally, the shameless seller, are beasts we must both fight.

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/14/2008 5:00:06 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 8/14/2008 3:14:36 PM
Author: Serg

Now commercial reason to improve round and princess cuts is absent. AGS killed this reason. Cutters have not reason more to invest money to improve these two cuts

I don''t think so Sergey. AGS Ideal cuts are beautiful, which is why they enjoy the reputation they have, but less than 2% of diamonds produced are sent to AGS because that level of light performance is hard to acquire; manufacturers prefer to send most goods to other labs.

With such a small footprint I don''t think AGS could ''kill'' anything. You should be more concerned with GIA. Have you followed manufacturing trends? More and more producers are going after the steep/deep end of GIA EX rounds. Unlike cutters who target AGS0, some of these GIA EX are not even good performers. So, if you''re chasing manufacturer motives the steep/deep end of GIA is a more worthy target.

re:but less than 2% of diamonds produced are sent to AGS

John,
it is misleading statistic .
1)Please give % from same base for GIA grading
2) Lets consider %from value( not from quantity)
3) is it reasonable to cut I SI AGS0?
4) Give statistic for D IF round cut
5) consider only round and princess cut( why did you add to base cuts what ASG can not grade, low color or clarity, small size )

Give more correct statistic . Will you receive same conclusion ?

And more important point.
I said "ASG killed commercial reason to improve round cut, I mean to find better proportions ( or something like painting, stars.,.etc), better performance
You are speak about improvement cutting process to according ideal symmetry diamond according ASG rules.
It is quite different issue. Of course more and more cutters will cut according ASG0 standard( we sell more an more HP because cutters need instrument do it and control it more cheap way) .
They are doing it, they(followers) need time to adopt technology
But AGS killed Motivations for Leaders be Leaders, find something new
Do you see difference?

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 3:28:23 PM
Author: strmrdr
lots of ground being covered here:

1: no one owns the word ideal

Just so. And the message of the Podcast is that sellers use that word because they know it has reputability (thanks in large part to AGS) but the standards are all over the map.

Every one of those examples you posted John they have a legal and moral right to use the word.

Not all. See the graphic bottom of p1 where they expressly say AGS0. Higher up on p1 the seller outlines his definitions but then breaks them on his own site (not too moral to me). Again, the message of the Podcast is to inform consumers about the confusing use of the word and standards all over the map.

AGS does not own the word ideal, they should use a term they own.
The word ideal is meaningless in today's market is the best message we can send out at this point.
Pushing the term ideal does nothing to fix the problem.

They are framing “AGS Ideal” as the term they own.

2: Grading all diamonds on the same scale.
While comparisons can be made in some areas different cuts get their beauty in different ways.
A round and an EC/SE performance is not directly comparable because the criteria for picking the best round is not the same criteria for picking the best EC/SE.
Showing consumers what to look for in each cut is the proper thing to do while not limiting choices.
That is what I am dedicated to with EC/SE cuts.

That’s an important point, and not in-line with the IDCC1 suggestions (#4). It's a tough nut to crack.

3: Wink do you sell ideal cut diamonds or do you sell beautiful diamonds?
Send the same stones to GIA and they would still pick the same stones.

This is in harmony with a message in the podcast. Find reputable jewelers! (and by the way, many of the most reputable ones I know carry diamonds with AGS reports)

4: I love unique and different diamonds. Trying to force diamonds into one narrow zone or box is bad for consumers and the market. (Serg's point that I agree with 100%).

That is nice to say from our high perch, sipping cognac and running DiamCalc (fill my glass please) but for consumers out there in the trenches I'll argue that right now, today, AGS especially and, to a degree, GIA serve as beacons of protection.

Knowing to seek a diamond that's been through testing and meets reputable performance standards - even if it fits into a certain “zone” of beauty - is much preferable to buying a piece of nominal dreck from some shameless toothy cheeser selling it under a false label.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 4:23:40 PM
Author: strmrdr
John,
I wanted to publicly say I admire and share your zeal for protecting consumers.
I think in this case we disagree what the best way is to do that.
But the goal is the same.
Thank you for the time you spend helping consumers.

Karl,

It is greatly appreciated. And the same tip of the hat to you.

Given six-minutes on AGS’ platform to deliver a message, I decided addressing “ideal” vs “AGS Ideal” confusion out there served consumers as well as the interests of the lab who graciously invited us.

And yes, you and I are on the same Olympic team, even if we go head-to-head in the all-around sometimes.

 

[diagem]

I have been reading this thread..., and the more I read it the more commercial it becomes to me...., (The AGS etc..., the AGS etc..., and etc again...)

Serg, I am completely with you on your thoughts and writing....

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 5:28:03 PM
Author: DiaGem
I have been reading this thread..., and the more I read it the more commercial it becomes to me...., (The AGS etc..., the AGS etc..., and etc again...)

Serg, I am completely with you on your thoughts and writing....

DG, can you elaborate? What is it, exactly, that you disagree with in terms of the AGS grading metric?

Also, can you answer this question (from above):

If given a choice, blind, to take delivery of 100 IGI/EGL/GIA princess cuts or 100 AGS0 princess cuts (same carat/color/clarity) which choice do you predict would result in the collection with the highest cut quality and overall performance? Same question with rounds.

 

[Serg]

Re:I believe you wish for the trade to break out of the current “round brilliant” (+ also-ran) focus, so innovative new cuts can proliferate and become popular.

Not exactly. Round cut is find for engagement market ( traditional and conservative part market) . Round is fine like first diamond
We have not goal to change it

Our goal to Add new type markets. “Fashion” diamond market , custom market, Luxury market

Re : For this to happen, won’t the fundamental philosophy in buying, trading and planning (mine to sightholder) have to change? Won’t assembly-line polishers have to be retrained for each new cut? If mechanical, won’t it require a complete overhaul of equipment? In order to sell, won’t the paradigms of thousands (at the minimum...millions?) of consumers need to shift to embrace - and commit to paying - for types of new cuts they have never seen before?
These questions are very well known for us. Some answers we have right now, Some answers will ready a soon. We are working and we have clear understanding how we will help industry to change production model.
But we can just help, we can not do it all. Industry should do it, you are part industry. We can give technical solutions , we can give suggestions, ideas you, But only you can switch your mind and activity. It is your choice

 

[strmrdr]

John said:
"Not all. See the graphic bottom of p1 where they expressly say AGS0. Higher up on p1 the seller outlines his definitions but then breaks them on his own site (not too moral to me)."

I stand corrected on those 2 instances.
The idea is the same.

To address another point:
Give a talk to 20 people that aren''t that interested is diamonds about AGS Ideal.
Then a week later ask them about it and more people are going to remember the talk about ideal diamonds.

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/14/2008 5:32:07 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 8/14/2008 5:28:03 PM
Author: DiaGem
I have been reading this thread..., and the more I read it the more commercial it becomes to me...., (The AGS etc..., the AGS etc..., and etc again...)

Serg, I am completely with you on your thoughts and writing....

DG, can you elaborate? What is it, exactly, that you disagree with in terms of the AGS grading metric?

I have been long agreeing with Serg on what AGS identifies as the "best"..., or as you prefer "real ideal"...

Also, can you answer this question (from above):

John..., I understand the fact that AGS offered you a stage..., but I wouldnt be caught wording the following as I "strongly" disagree with the following words you said: (maybe not the exact words but....)

-AGS Ideal, the BEST diamond a consumer can buy...
-...new quality benchmark for beauty...
-...ONLY WAY to be sure or certain you have something special ... stick with AGS Ideal...

Common John..., you know my thoughts on Diamonds beauty already...

If given a choice, blind, to take delivery of 100 IGI/EGL/GIA princess cuts or 100 AGS0 princess cuts (same carat/color/clarity) which choice do you predict would result in the collection with the highest cut quality and overall performance? Same question with rounds.

John..., what are the TD% tolerances of AGS to stay within the AGS0 Princess cut scope??

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/14/2008 3:28:23 PM
Author: strmrdr
lots of ground being covered here:

1: no one owns the word ideal, Every one of those examples you posted John they have a legal and moral right to use the word.
AGS does not own the word ideal, they should use a term they own.
The word ideal is meaningless in today''s market is the best message we can send out at this point.
Pushing the term ideal does nothing to fix the problem.

2: Grading all diamonds on the same scale.
While comparisons can be made in some areas different cuts get their beauty in different ways.
A round and an EC/SE performance is not directly comparable because the criteria for picking the best round is not the same criteria for picking the best EC/SE.
Showing consumers what to look for in each cut is the proper thing to do while not limiting choices.
That is what I am dedicated to with EC/SE cuts.

3: Wink do you sell ideal cut diamonds or do you sell beautiful diamonds?
Send the same stones to GIA and they would still pick the same stones.

4: I love unique and different diamonds. Trying to force diamonds into one narrow zone or box is bad for consumers and the market. (Serg''s point that I agree with 100%).

re:A round and an EC/SE performance is not directly comparable because the criteria for picking the best round is not the same criteria for picking the best EC/SE.
Showing consumers what to look for in each cut is the proper thing to do while not limiting choices.

Strmdr,
It is not big problem
1) DO not use just one score. Give to consumer 3 scores( Brilliancy, Fire, Scintillation).( Do anybody combine clarity, color and cut in one grade now?)
2) Do not grade Shape( girdle shape). It is question of Taste
3) read Parker Vine Guide . You will see solution in this Guide . IDCC1 Poster: Examples of grading systems for different types of goods

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/14/2008 5:32:07 PM
Author: John Pollard


If given a choice, blind, to take delivery of 100 IGI/EGL/GIA princess cuts or 100 AGS0 princess cuts (same carat/color/clarity) which choice do you predict would result in the collection with the highest cut quality and overall performance? Same question with rounds.

Not knowing who cut them certainly AGS for rounds and princess cuts with no other information.
But If I had IS images and c&p angles lgf% table and depth for the rounds then I would use that over any cut grade.
When buying blind and in the dark AGS is a little safer than the others for rounds and a lot for princess cuts.
That does not extend into step cuts however.

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/14/2008 5:53:29 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/14/2008 5:32:07 PM
Author: John Pollard


If given a choice, blind, to take delivery of 100 IGI/EGL/GIA princess cuts or 100 AGS0 princess cuts (same carat/color/clarity) which choice do you predict would result in the collection with the highest cut quality and overall performance? Same question with rounds.

Not knowing who cut them certainly AGS for rounds and princess cuts with no other information.
But If I had IS images and c&p angles for the rounds then I would use that over any cut grade.
When buying blind and in the dark AGS is a little safer than the others for rounds and a lot for princess cuts.
That does not extend into step cuts however.

Why would you say a lot safer for Princess Cuts Storm??