our own John Pollard in a AGS podcast advertisement

[Serg]

Re: It definitely could be a welcome part of my business, but don''t forget that well over 95% of my clients come in asking for rounds and princesses. Those I already have my source for. If a market can be created for the creative cuts, I would love to have part of it, but I can not afford to inventory them, which makes your concept even more appealing to me.

Wink,

You do not need change source for round and princess cuts. Most probably we even will not cut such cuts at all

But AGS0 round and princess cuts should be in collection ( same visual spread like other cuts in collection ) and client should compare other cuts with AGS0 diamonds.
Before order Client should be sure he did fair comparison and he found what is best for him now

If Him choice is Princess you call to Paul S. just it

Re: Serg..., you mean a regular and speciality Diamond via order servicing house?

Diagem,

Not commodity cuts( see answer for Wink). Luxury cuts only

re:With a few added value options as history chain details?

I think profit could be bigger for all ( Consumer, salesman, Cutter, Designer )

If salesman has stock he has bigger margin but less profit ( for Fancy cuts at least. Commodity cuts has better liquidity and better profit ) . In our case he will bigger margin than for internet sells, and less then for him stock sells

It is of course rough idea only. Firstly we need check additional expenses on manufacture side. In this model manufacture should have huge semicut stock ready for sawing( Rough with windows , ready 3d models with inclusions and allocation plans for different cuts)

We will start discussion with manufacture in next week. Main problem to develop special Dops for these cuts and decrease time production . But it is possible

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 5:19:57 PM
Author: Serg

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?

I do see the difference you''re speaking of, but I don''t think these goals are mutually exclusive.

1)Please give % from same base for GIA grading

IDEX published an informative article on the labs here:
http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullMazalUbracha.asp?id=30649

According to the report (there is a pie chart halfway down) GIA has 65% and AGS 1.6% of market share. However IGI seems strangely underrepresented. Maybe their “credit card” reports, multi-grade reports or report-appraisals were not included? In any event, IGI paper for diamonds is omnipresent in US chain stores, ‘fine-jewelry’ counters at department stores and ‘direct-to-public’ type outlets. I suspect there is far more IGI paper than the IDEX report shows.

2) Lets consider %from value( not from quantity)
AGSL grades far more small stones relative to GIA (see the chart in the article), so value would be less.

3) is it reasonable to cut I SI AGS0?
That’s the owner of the rough’s decision to make.

4) Give statistic for D IF round cut
The article cites 2.5% of diamonds graded as IF and 12.6% as D.

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)
I’m not sure I understand the question Sergey?

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

Actually, they illuminated what is possible (best example of this is with the princess cut). AGS created VLVF matrixes using angular spectrum - scientifically peer-reviewed and published - and showed areas that produce the best performance with the best weight ratio. That’s in line with their mission of consumer protection.

With respect to painting, stars etc, if a stone gets the performance values it gets the grade, so if a cutter can figure out how to put 90% stars on the stone and achieve the brightness, dispersion (etc) required it gets the grade.

You are speak about improvement cutting process to according ideal symmetry diamond according ASG rules.

AGS and the lab were instrumental in improving the quality of symmetry and polish. From a purely aesthetic point of view this is desirable. Frankly, this is an area where I personally feel the lab is too strict, but the presence of that strictness has probably helped the trade.

It is quite different issue. Of course more and more cutters will cut according ASG0 standard (we sell more an more HP (what is 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

A professional ray-tracer that gives values for any 3D model, allowing anyone to see how a newly designed cut compares to established benchmarks is planned if I am not mistaken, Sergey. I believe you’re very familiar with that concept!

If we put out a cut grading system per Gabi Tolkowsky it would be:
Top grade = “a beauty”
Any lesser grades = “another beauty”

That is a wonderful attitude which I admire and embrace, but people want to know what they are buying. They want quality benchmarks. The increasing demand for grading reports and improvement of bottom-end of cut quality over the past decade are clear indicators of that. The vox populi on Pricescope is another indicator (and I am talking about browsers and short-timers, not just the long-time regulars).

Ideal is a word. GIA’s top grade is Excellent. One could consider going back to AAA, AA, A, B, C grades but the bottom line is that there will be a word or number you use for your top grade. We could argue that the top grade in the trade is “It’s a nice stone…” “It’s a cream puff…” etc. etc. etc.

Whatever you call it, for me this is about standards which protect the consumer, regardless of whether or not someone likes or doesn’t like the word ideal.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 6:31:53 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/14/2008 6:26:18 PM
Author: John Pollard

Regarding disagreement; my first post in this thread explained that this format was different than an extended discussion like we'd have here. People on PS have the benefit of web 2.0 and days of interaction. The podcast is one-way and just hopes to stop people from making bad decisions.

Ok..., Robin Hood

, but I am still hopeful that not ALL jewelers are deceivers..., maybe I am naive..., but will not give up on the luxury called 'trust' in this industry...

If you have a solution to help shoppers preparing to buy terribly cut commercial goods today please let me know. If you don't I think those steered towards the best cut grading systems we currently have in major markets will be thankful for the advice.

(I also wish you'd take the suggestion to actually visit AGS and speak in person with the researchers there)

Robin Bald you mean?

Of course not. I have good friends in many different markets. Some of them trade in diamonds I would not sell, but as long as they do it with transparency it’s not an issue.

It’s people in high-trafficked areas giving bad information and value; whether intentionally or from lack of education, that represents the problem. I'm not alone in thinking this. In his 2008 JCK session Bob Janowski cited the top 10 threats to our industry today. High up at number two is lack of education and distrust of jewelers.

Quote: “Too many know too little; salespeople on low salaries with long hours and poor benefits are unmotivated to learn. This undermines public confidence and embeds a distrust of jewelers. The media stays after this with seasonal stories of misrepresentation.”

It's true. Every year local TV news "exposes" jewelers for bad practices. Martin Rapaport has emphasized this stuff several times in his presentations the past few years. I understand you have faith in your fellows. I’m a pretty positive person too, but in every business there are rotten applies, and ours is no exception.

It's not all intentional... We also have flocks of salespeople in high-trafficked stores who were selling ladies’ shoes last week. Mix in the multivarious systems of grading, soft inconsistent reports and managers/owners focusing on volume (because margins are shrinking), so grabbing up whatever they can turn at the most-below-Rap prices available and you have a formula for commercial markets that are rife with low quality goods and misinformation.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 9:04:28 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

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. John the main reason AGS do not get more business is because of their strict sym and polish rules. If they change that their biz and importance would grow very fast. But at present they only earn 3-4% more for their clients according to AGS's own ad's.

I also believe they're overstrict on finish, but I don't believe that is the main reason Garry, and especially not with princess cuts. Once we have 3D files available on Rap/Idex/Poly I can show you what I mean.

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. I agree, and it is bad / sad. But we, the Cut group, have been the only critics, and no one in the trade seems to care, which is why Pricescope is sooo important.

Without kayaking into an unnecessary tangent, I believe Brian Gavin was among the first critics Garry. You aren't alone. I have walked a moderate line because I think their establishing a cut grade is one of the best things that has happened for general consumer cut-awareness. I do share concern about its drawbacks. A fundamental problem (re caring) is that the "trade" has a lot of big-time manufacturers who are in favor of the deep end of EX.

We demonstrate our "care" by cutting to proportions sets we consider optimal in the face of all that. You realize of course that it would be easier to take our rough and cut helter-skelter in more liberal systems, rather than focusing on a single geometry for round & princess and voluntarily submitting our product to the light performance measures and over-strict finish standards you speak of. Some may be surprised that we're not actually masochists...

We care about quality.

On the vast improvement in cut quality that has happened over the past decade, I believe Pricescope and the experts and advanced consumers here have played as important a role as any other player.

It has certainly been an influence.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 8/15/2008 10:41:01 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/15/2008 1:49:06 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/14/2008 11:36:25 PM
Author: Allison D.

You come from the approach of ''not all jewelers are deceivers'', which seems as though you feel John is suggesting the opposite.

I honestly don''t think that''s true.

Some of these ''jewelers'' salespeople don''t actually *know* enough about their own products to even grasp that they are misinformed. It''s not necessarily always a willful attempt at deception, but often rather a lack of knowledge. They suffer from tutelage at the feet of others who don''t know much more about well-cut stones because they don''t sell them.

Well..., I wish the spirit of this thread or its language was more in the spirit of your explanation..., but I would suggest you re read this thread.

Your definition of ''jeweler'' would imply that all jewelers are knowledgable folks in the industry with lots of knowledge and experience. That''s not the reality in the marketplace....at least not in this country.

Like I said above Alj...

Maybe you read the thread as ''a problem with the knowledge of jewelers''..., but unfortunately..., I dont!

DiaGem, I''m not sure why you''re replying to your own comment again, but I''d say this:

I have read the thread.....with comprehension. The fact that you and I don''t agree doesn''t imply a lack of reading comprehension on my part. Rather, it simply signifies that we don''t agree.

You seem to have an axe to grind about AGS, and that''s fine. Every lab has avid supporters as well as those who feel there''s plenty of room for improvement.

Just like John Pollard, I come from the consumer side, so I feel very qualified to speak to what consumers buying online worry about. Based on that experience, I can tell you this: I put much more faith in AGS''s grading metrics than any other at this moment. While true, that doesn''t mean I don''t think there''s room for improvement.....there''s ALWAYS room for improvement.

But yes.....I DO feel it''s the best metrics available *at this present moment*. Since there is typically a symbiotic relationship between stellar light performance and what many consumers would consider ''beauty'', it is reasonalbe for those consumers who want to play it safe/conservative who don''t wish to immerse themselves in all things diamonds to shortcut by relying on the expert opinion (grading report) of a well-respected lab.

Of course there is more than one type of beauty; on that I completely agree with you. However, for those consumers who feel safer/more comfortable relying on a respected lab''s professional opinion, I think the AGS0 does a tremendous service.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/15/2008 11:59:10 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/15/2008 11:14:48 AM
Author: Ellen!

And I also don't recall steep/deeps being referred to as frozen spit. The implication to them being mentioned, is that they are not going to be nearly as bright and beautiful as a stone cut closer to Tolk specs. But I have been around this block with Diagem before, we both know where we stand, so I won't elaborate.

Pity..., I would have love to hear your definition of the connection between 'steep/deep', Tolk specs., and beauty...

DiaGem, there is a big difference between the slightly “steep/deep” included in GIA EX which some of us ‘round here caution about - versus what lurks in commercial markets.

This 0.97 steep/deep faces up like a 0.75 ct should. It would receive AGS10 and GIA Poor if cut grading were present, but the only indicators on this report related to cut say “good.” How would you classify it?

While I imagine a lot of non-pros would smell this out pretty fast, consumer protection should not be limited to smart people.

 

[John P]

Another example: A 1ct that faces up at 6.25mm.

Should someone pay a 1ct price for it?
Do you trust all jewelers to say “Although this says 1ct it will never look like a 1ct.”

It’s predicted as AGS8 in light performance. GIA would give it Good. IGI gives it ‘Very Good.’

 

[John P]

Here is a 1ct that faces up at 6.14mm.
The only indicators related to cut are ‘Very Good’ and ‘Good.’

It may be beautiful, but shouldn’t there be some indication that it faces up like an 85 pointer?
AGS and GIA would penalize it for weight ratio.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/14/2008 6:26:01 PM
Author: strmrdr

using a pretend 1 to 10 scale of diamond beauty...

The average rb on the market in my area is a 6 and the best rb a 10
The average princess on the market in my area is a 3 and the best a 10
The difference between average and best is much wider in princess cuts.
In my opinion and according to my observations.

In a hypothetical sense I agree completely.
I'd add that if you walk into a discount-diamond outlet in any major city the low end of the round range drops off.

DiaGem, here is some actual data for you. I searched Rap for round brilliants, D-K, 0.90-1.10 ct, sorted by best available price. Those examples are what you might expect to find in “discount” consumer markets. I only looked at depth, so it's far from an actual study, but I hope it interests you.

Note that IGI and EGL have different report formats; many of which give no indication of cut quality, like the examples posted above.

IGI-graded

Of the lowest-priced 1000 round brilliants returned
617 have depth >63%
397 >65%
264 >66%
170 >67%
(70 = no depth reported or incorrectly classified)

EGL-graded (all labs)

Of the lowest-priced 1000 round brilliants returned
545 have depth >63%
282 >65%
184 >66%
124 >67%
(30 = no depth reported or incorrectly classified)

GIA-graded

Of the lowest-priced 1000 round brilliants returned

671 have depth >63%... Post-2006 reports show a cut grade of VG or lower
(49 = no depth reported or incorrectly classified)

AGS-graded

620 round brilliants listed

65 have depth >63%... None of them received AGS0
(10 = no depth reported or incorrectly classified)


I believe new shoppers in commercial markets, as well as those looking online, are more protected by seeking reports with a reputable cut quality assessment.

Even better advice, tailored to each person: Choose the jeweler before you choose the stone. Choosing an AGS member is usually a good choice. Choosing a dealer in AGSL goods is another good choice. There are others of course. The lab report, no matter what lab issued it, is support for the confidence you are placing in your jeweler, not a substitute for it. The one who is calling it 'ideal' is the jeweler just as they are the one who chose what lab and what definition to use.

 

[John P]

By the way DG, after reading the above post will you please answer the question I’ve asked you two times already? (don’t make me come over there!)

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.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/15/2008 3:43:58 PM
Author: John Pollard
By the way DG, after reading the above post will you please answer the question I’ve asked you two times already? (don’t make me come over there!)

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.

hmmm, a little background music please, I feel a song coming on.

Come on baby light my fire, come on baby light my FIRE! The time for hesitating''s through...

That''s it baby keep those feet to the fire!

Wink

P.S. Too bad most of you are too young to remember that little bit of rock and roll.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/15/2008 4:01:55 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/15/2008 3:43:58 PM
Author: John Pollard
By the way DG, after reading the above post will you please answer the question I’ve asked you two times already? (don’t make me come over there!)

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.

hmmm, a little background music please, I feel a song coming on.

Come on baby light my fire, come on baby light my FIRE! The time for hesitating''s through...

That''s it baby keep those feet to the fire!

Wink

P.S. Too bad most of you are too young to remember that little bit of rock and roll.

I actually am rather partial to The Doors!

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/15/2008 3:19:10 PM
Author: John Pollard
Another example: A 1ct that faces up at 6.25mm.

Should someone pay a 1ct price for it?
Do you trust all jewelers to say “Although this says 1ct it will never look like a 1ct.”

It’s predicted as AGS8 in light performance. GIA would give it Good. IGI gives it ‘Very Good.’

John,
Cut grade( performance grade ) is not necessary here. Spread is more adequate and correct instrument for this problem
Same for most other your examples

 

[strmrdr]

John can you ran a RAP search for AGS graded EC and SE with cut grade?

 

[Serg]

Re: 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)
I’m not sure I understand the question Sergey?

John,
AGS do cut grade for 3 cuts only.
No reason to send other cuts to AGS.
ASG and GIA have different base.

You need compare % for round+princess diamonds with good color and clarity

“GIA certificates are issued for almost all grades, clarities, sizes, cuts and makes of stones. It was the only lab that seemed to grade just about any diamond in the market.”
“As one would expect, the AGS lab issues 70 percent of the certs that accompany ideal cut diamonds.”
Re: Research methodology – a huge sample
Our analysis was extracted from the IDEX Online diamond trading network. The IDEX Online diamond database includes the inventories of industry players that account for approximately 80 percent of the global diamond trade (by $ value);

What is reason send AGS0 diamond to IDEX Online diamond trading network?????

Does 80% AGS had been send to IDEX network? I do not believe

 

[Serg]

Re: AGS created VLVF matrixes using angular spectrum - scientifically peer-reviewed and published - and showed areas that produce the best performance with the best weight ratio.

GIA can say same. Do you believe in quality GIA research ? Does GIA cut grading system correct?
Same for ASG peer-reviewed article. I do not believe in quality and results AGS R&D .

Quality peer-review in cut grading research is not possible at all. We have not science community for such review .
What AGS published in optical science magazine has not real connection to study performance . ASG did not do TESTs. At least AGS did not publish methodic and results such tests.

Science status AGS results is hypothesis. Only hypothesis which could be correct or incorrect

GIA R&D was more scientifically correct. AGS results is more practically correct because ASG used more progressive instruments in research. But ASG research is not according classical science way

 

[strmrdr]

This is the kind of innovation cut grading harms.
And no I am not going to give anyone the numbers.

What are its advantages?
No large dark zones at tilt.
Draws light from other than strait up when tilted. (more green)
Larger virtual facets to match up with a 1.5ct tolk RB.

What is it?
The better side stone :}

Applying either the AGS or GIA rules would make consumers think it was junk.

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/15/2008 4:36:55 PM
Author: strmrdr
This is the kind of innovation cut grading harms.
And no I am not going to give anyone the numbers.

Strmdr,
Could you please explain your statement?
I just can not translate . I do not need numbers, just explanation what you said

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/15/2008 4:43:31 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/15/2008 4:36:55 PM

Author: strmrdr

This is the kind of innovation cut grading harms.

And no I am not going to give anyone the numbers.

Strmdr,

Could you please explain your statement?

I just can not translate . I do not need numbers, just explanation what you said

Sorry about that Serg I added an explanation above.
Applying either the AGS or GIA rules would make consumers think it was junk.

 

[strmrdr]

Here is the face up ASET.
The disconnect between the AGS cut grading and reality is that at tilt with overhead lighting the green is actually drawing light from overhead(red in ASET).
If viewing this design strait on | with overhead lighting or at an angle / with overhead lighting its better than a tolk.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/15/2008 4:57:34 PM
Author: strmrdr
Here is the face up ASET.
The disconnect between the AGS cut grading and reality is that at tilt with overhead lighting the green is actually drawing light from overhead(red in ASET).
If viewing this design strait on | with overhead lighting or at an angle / with overhead lighting its better than a tolk.

I think it might be pretty, but I am not ready to pronounce it better than a modern round brilliant. I would want to see one, and yes, it might be stunning as a side stone. Can you show us the ASET at a 45 degree angle?

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/15/2008 5:08:37 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/15/2008 4:57:34 PM

Author: strmrdr

Here is the face up ASET.

The disconnect between the AGS cut grading and reality is that at tilt with overhead lighting the green is actually drawing light from overhead(red in ASET).

If viewing this design strait on | with overhead lighting or at an angle / with overhead lighting its better than a tolk.

I think it might be pretty, but I am not ready to pronounce it better than a modern round brilliant. I would want to see one, and yes, it might be stunning as a side stone. Can you show us the ASET at a 45 degree angle?


Wink

As the main diamond it isn''t as nice as a tolk.
Trying to paint all diamonds with the same brush regardless of use limits innovation.

45 degree ASET

 

[strmrdr]

DC Standard tolk at 45 degrees.

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/15/2008 3:09:28 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/15/2008 10:41:01 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/15/2008 1:49:06 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/14/2008 11:36:25 PM
Author: Allison D.

You come from the approach of ''not all jewelers are deceivers'', which seems as though you feel John is suggesting the opposite.

I honestly don''t think that''s true.

Some of these ''jewelers'' salespeople don''t actually *know* enough about their own products to even grasp that they are misinformed. It''s not necessarily always a willful attempt at deception, but often rather a lack of knowledge. They suffer from tutelage at the feet of others who don''t know much more about well-cut stones because they don''t sell them.

Well..., I wish the spirit of this thread or its language was more in the spirit of your explanation..., but I would suggest you re read this thread.

Your definition of ''jeweler'' would imply that all jewelers are knowledgable folks in the industry with lots of knowledge and experience. That''s not the reality in the marketplace....at least not in this country.

Like I said above Alj...

Maybe you read the thread as ''a problem with the knowledge of jewelers''..., but unfortunately..., I dont!

DiaGem, I''m not sure why you''re replying to your own comment again, but I''d say this:

I have read the thread.....with comprehension. The fact that you and I don''t agree doesn''t imply a lack of reading comprehension on my part. Rather, it simply signifies that we don''t agree.

You seem to have an axe to grind about AGS, and that''s fine. Every lab has avid supporters as well as those who feel there''s plenty of room for improvement.

Sorry..., I have no problem with AGS at all..., if I have a problem already with is GIA

, actually..., I never ever submitted any of my work to AGS for a grading report as I dont cut neither rounds nor Princess''s...

Just like John Pollard, I come from the consumer side, so I feel very qualified to speak to what consumers buying online worry about. Based on that experience, I can tell you this: I put much more faith in AGS''s grading metrics than any other at this moment. While true, that doesn''t mean I don''t think there''s room for improvement.....there''s ALWAYS room for improvement.

But yes.....I DO feel it''s the best metrics available *at this present moment*. Since there is typically a symbiotic relationship between stellar light performance and what many consumers would consider ''beauty'', it is reasonalbe for those consumers who want to play it safe/conservative who don''t wish to immerse themselves in all things diamonds to shortcut by relying on the expert opinion (grading report) of a well-respected lab.

Now..., here I dont agree with you

, some consumers would believe that as it is part of the education here on PS..., Some would not necessarily connect "stellar light performance" to beauty at all!!!
The majority of my client would not as I educate them differently or they educated me that beauty has nothing to do with "stellar performance" (not only light

)...

Of course there is more than one type of beauty; on that I completely agree with you. However, for those consumers who feel safer/more comfortable relying on a respected lab''s professional opinion, I think the AGS0 does a tremendous service

At least we agree that there is more than one type of beauty

..., but..., do any labs have an exclusivity or any IP on/for describing beauty via numbers???

What happens if the Diamond is not a "stellar light performer"??? What category will you classify it as???

Education is great..., but what you or labs educate has nothing to do with the beauty of Diamonds!!!

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/15/2008 3:43:58 PM
Author: John Pollard
By the way DG, after reading the above post will you please answer the question I’ve asked you two times already? (don’t make me come over there!)

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.

See John...., (and I am surprised as you have learned some of of ways of thinking already...

)...., your meaning of "highest cut quality and overall performance" is not the same as my meaning..., I would never "take delivery" of any Princess or modern "high performance" rounds as I wouldnt know what to do with them..., I guess I could walk into a colleague''s office of mine and sell the lot as-is at the current market price..., but then your question would mean the same to me if you added 100 Kilo''s of gold to the mix (or any other commodity)

...

But if you would make me make a decision (please dont point...

)..., I would definitely go with the GIA Princess cuts or rounds..., why??? Because I would have a greater range of beauties rather than an assembly line production of AGS 0''s... (sorry, but thats the way I feel and think...)

I asked you previously what the AGS 0 Princess TD''s ranges are and you replied (I think) 55-80%..., can you then explain to me why would I settle for 100 AGS 0 princess cuts that only range between 74-80% +/-???..., I maybe wrong..., but I have not seen (yet) an AGS 0 Princess with a depth of 55-65%..., I am pretty certain that at-least a significant portion of GIA Princess cuts (especially in the good - Ex range) would fall into that TD% range..., and my opinion is that I will have an assortment of prettier Diamonds than the AGS''s way...

hummm..., surprised?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/15/2008 5:27:34 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/15/2008 3:09:28 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/15/2008 10:41:01 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/15/2008 1:49:06 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/14/2008 11:36:25 PM
Author: Allison D.

You come from the approach of ''not all jewelers are deceivers'', which seems as though you feel John is suggesting the opposite.

I honestly don''t think that''s true.

Some of these ''jewelers'' salespeople don''t actually *know* enough about their own products to even grasp that they are misinformed. It''s not necessarily always a willful attempt at deception, but often rather a lack of knowledge. They suffer from tutelage at the feet of others who don''t know much more about well-cut stones because they don''t sell them.

Well..., I wish the spirit of this thread or its language was more in the spirit of your explanation..., but I would suggest you re read this thread.

Your definition of ''jeweler'' would imply that all jewelers are knowledgable folks in the industry with lots of knowledge and experience. That''s not the reality in the marketplace....at least not in this country.

Like I said above Alj...

Maybe you read the thread as ''a problem with the knowledge of jewelers''..., but unfortunately..., I dont!

DiaGem, I''m not sure why you''re replying to your own comment again, but I''d say this:

I have read the thread.....with comprehension. The fact that you and I don''t agree doesn''t imply a lack of reading comprehension on my part. Rather, it simply signifies that we don''t agree.

You seem to have an axe to grind about AGS, and that''s fine. Every lab has avid supporters as well as those who feel there''s plenty of room for improvement.

Sorry..., I have no problem with AGS at all..., if I have a problem already with is GIA

, actually..., I never ever submitted any of my work to AGS for a grading report as I dont cut neither rounds nor Princess''s...

Just like John Pollard, I come from the consumer side, so I feel very qualified to speak to what consumers buying online worry about. Based on that experience, I can tell you this: I put much more faith in AGS''s grading metrics than any other at this moment. While true, that doesn''t mean I don''t think there''s room for improvement.....there''s ALWAYS room for improvement.

But yes.....I DO feel it''s the best metrics available *at this present moment*. Since there is typically a symbiotic relationship between stellar light performance and what many consumers would consider ''beauty'', it is reasonalbe for those consumers who want to play it safe/conservative who don''t wish to immerse themselves in all things diamonds to shortcut by relying on the expert opinion (grading report) of a well-respected lab.

Now..., here I dont agree with you

, some consumers would believe that as it is part of the education here on PS..., Some would not necessarily connect ''stellar light performance'' to beauty at all!!!
The majority of my client would not as I educate them differently or they educated me that beauty has nothing to do with ''stellar performance'' (not only light

)...

Of course there is more than one type of beauty; on that I completely agree with you. However, for those consumers who feel safer/more comfortable relying on a respected lab''s professional opinion, I think the AGS0 does a tremendous service

At least we agree that there is more than one type of beauty

..., but..., do any labs have an exclusivity or any IP on/for describing beauty via numbers???

What happens if the Diamond is not a ''stellar light performer''??? What category will you classify it as???

Education is great..., but what you or labs educate has nothing to do with the beauty of Diamonds!!!

Really? I have HUNDREDS of clients who appreciate knowing where the light in their diamonds is coming from and why their diamonds look "so much nicer" than their friend''s diamonds. If my clients think the diamonds are beautiful and are happy that they understand a little about why their diamonds are beautiful, how can you say that the education has nothing to do with the beauty of the diamond?

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/15/2008 5:46:26 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/15/2008 3:43:58 PM
Author: John Pollard
By the way DG, after reading the above post will you please answer the question I’ve asked you two times already? (don’t make me come over there!)

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.

See John...., (and I am surprised as you have learned some of of ways of thinking already...

)...., your meaning of ''highest cut quality and overall performance'' is not the same as my meaning..., I would never ''take delivery'' of any Princess or modern ''high performance'' rounds as I wouldnt know what to do with them..., I guess I could walk into a colleague''s office of mine and sell the lot as-is at the current market price..., but then your question would mean the same to me if you added 100 Kilo''s of gold to the mix (or any other commodity)

...

But if you would make me make a decision (please dont point...

)..., I would definitely go with the GIA Princess cuts or rounds..., why??? Because I would have a greater range of beauties rather than an assembly line production of AGS 0''s... (sorry, but thats the way I feel and think...)

I asked you previously what the AGS 0 Princess TD''s ranges are and you replied (I think) 55-80%..., can you then explain to me why would I settle for 100 AGS 0 princess cuts that only range between 74-80% +/-???..., I maybe wrong..., but I have not seen (yet) an AGS 0 Princess with a depth of 55-65%..., I am pretty certain that at-least a significant portion of GIA Princess cuts (especially in the good - Ex range) would fall into that TD% range..., and my opinion is that I will have an assortment of prettier Diamonds than the AGS''s way...

hummm..., surprised?

Don''t know about John, but I am not surprised you would say that. Hoever, while you may have a diversity of beauties you will also most likely have a bigger diversity of dogs. Good thing you do not have to actually take delivery, it might take a LOOOONNNNNNGGGGGGG time to sell some of them.

Wink

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/15/2008 4:01:55 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/15/2008 3:43:58 PM
Author: John Pollard
By the way DG, after reading the above post will you please answer the question I’ve asked you two times already? (don’t make me come over there!)

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.

hmmm, a little background music please, I feel a song coming on.

Come on baby light my fire, come on baby light my FIRE! The time for hesitating''s through...

That''s it baby keep those feet to the fire!

Wink

P.S. Too bad most of you are too young to remember that little bit of rock and roll.

Yep..., I agree on that..., I miss good new Rock..., so I keep listening to the good oldies....

But I would pick a "Queen" tune as background music for my listening mood right now....

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/15/2008 5:14:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/15/2008 5:08:37 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/15/2008 4:57:34 PM

Author: strmrdr

Here is the face up ASET.

The disconnect between the AGS cut grading and reality is that at tilt with overhead lighting the green is actually drawing light from overhead(red in ASET).

If viewing this design strait on | with overhead lighting or at an angle / with overhead lighting its better than a tolk.

I think it might be pretty, but I am not ready to pronounce it better than a modern round brilliant. I would want to see one, and yes, it might be stunning as a side stone. Can you show us the ASET at a 45 degree angle?


Wink

As the main diamond it isn''t as nice as a tolk.
Trying to paint all diamonds with the same brush regardless of use limits innovation.

45 degree ASET

Okay, I agree with you that potentially this should be a killer pave stone. Now, can we get anyone to cut it for a reasonable fee?

Wink

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/15/2008 5:57:17 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/15/2008 5:46:26 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/15/2008 3:43:58 PM
Author: John Pollard
By the way DG, after reading the above post will you please answer the question I’ve asked you two times already? (don’t make me come over there!)

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.

See John...., (and I am surprised as you have learned some of of ways of thinking already...

)...., your meaning of ''highest cut quality and overall performance'' is not the same as my meaning..., I would never ''take delivery'' of any Princess or modern ''high performance'' rounds as I wouldnt know what to do with them..., I guess I could walk into a colleague''s office of mine and sell the lot as-is at the current market price..., but then your question would mean the same to me if you added 100 Kilo''s of gold to the mix (or any other commodity)

...

But if you would make me make a decision (please dont point...

)..., I would definitely go with the GIA Princess cuts or rounds..., why??? Because I would have a greater range of beauties rather than an assembly line production of AGS 0''s... (sorry, but thats the way I feel and think...)

I asked you previously what the AGS 0 Princess TD''s ranges are and you replied (I think) 55-80%..., can you then explain to me why would I settle for 100 AGS 0 princess cuts that only range between 74-80% +/-???..., I maybe wrong..., but I have not seen (yet) an AGS 0 Princess with a depth of 55-65%..., I am pretty certain that at-least a significant portion of GIA Princess cuts (especially in the good - Ex range) would fall into that TD% range..., and my opinion is that I will have an assortment of prettier Diamonds than the AGS''s way...

hummm..., surprised?

Don''t know about John, but I am not surprised you would say that. Hoever, while you may have a diversity of beauties you will also most likely have a bigger diversity of dogs. Good thing you do not have to actually take delivery, it might take a LOOOONNNNNNGGGGGGG time to sell some of them.

Wink

Wink..., if you only know a fraction of my production/work..., you would probably throw them all in the safe and take the month off...

Thats the beauty of this industry..., I market beautiful Diamonds that you would probably not know what to do with them or where to even start...

And yes..., I am surprised at John