question about different AGS certificates

[johngalt2004]

I see some certificates with the "light performance, proportion, and finish" all listed distinctly on the left hand side under the cut grade with their individual scores.

Then I see some certificates with the "light performance, proportion, and finish" all listed way off to the upper right beyond the borders of the document with their iindividual scores.

Then I see some, on the same stock with the same dark strip on the left, that say "performance based" in the upper right but do not list the three distinct zeros under cut. I''m not talking about the "old" report template... but the three distinct scores are not listed sometimes.

Are these third type suspect? Does this mean it was graded without measuring light performance? Is there a rhyme or reason to which of these three layouts a certificate has?

How can you be sure you aren''t getting the "old" AGS grading if the light performance score is not spelled out on the certificate? Does the expression "performance based" on the upper right part of the certificate prove that the cut grade includes a light performance score?

 

[denverappraiser]

AGSL offers 3 primary reports for diamonds. The DQD, for Diamond Quality Document includes the cut grading and the DQR, for Diamond Quality Report does not. The DQA, for Diamond Quality Analysis is a smaller document that looks rather like a DQD without the plotting diagram. This is probably what you're seeing but it's hard to tell from your description alone. There have been some slight formatting modifications, like the tab that extends off the right hand side of the DQD and the way the plotting key is generated but these are basically the three reports you are likely to run into. All three types have a title bar at the top that identifies them.

Dealers generally choose between the DQD and the DQR for one of two reasons. First, the DQR is a little bit cheaper and, all things being equal, cheaper is a good thing. More importantly, the fact that the DQR doesn’t list the cut grade means that if the grade is likely to be bad, or even mediocre, they can still have the status of an AGS pedigree without needing to explain an uncomplimentary score. DQA gets chosen over DQD for stones below a carat in weight because it’s got the cut grade but is less expensive.

The old system is not used on reports issued after Jan 2, 2006. In the later half of 2005 there was a brief window when the client was given the choice of which system they wanted to use and all pre-2005 reports used the old system. If it says 'performance based', it's the new system.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[jpk1102]

This diamond has a DQR with no cut grade. The diamond is listed as "Ideal Cut". What is one to think about the cut grade on this diamond? The Ideal Cut description and the Sarin, Ideal Scope and Aset images would put this in an Excellent/Ideal cut category, yes?

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-395182.htm#

 

[denverappraiser]

Ring up the dealer and ask them. A DQD is only issued if the client, meaning the dealer, requests and pays extra for it. They should be able to explain to you how they determined that the stone is ‘ideal’ and why they chose to order a DQR. You then get to decide if you find their argument persuasive.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[jpk1102]

From further investigation, I would assume (rightfully or wrongly) that since a Sarin Report was done on this specific diamond, and all items scored AGS0 for symmetry, the stone rightfully deserves an AGS Ideal Cut rating. The symmetry on the Sarin Report lists the diamond''s depth, table, crown, crown height, pavillion angle, pavillion depth.......all those measurements that comprise CUT...and gives a AGS 0 for each. So the stone is rated AGS 0 or Ideal Cut? Does the symmetry of those items determine the cut? Confusing.......but fasinating!

However, that grading on the Sarin might explain why the vendor choose to go with the cheaper "DQR" than the DQA or DQD, the fact that the Sarin registered AGS 0 on all fronts. However, the stone has many minor items marked on the girdle. This should be just a clarity issue and in no way affect the cut?

I will, however, as suggested, ask the seller and get an explanation.

 

[denverappraiser]

DQA is fairly new product for AGS and they may simply not be accustomed ordering to it or your exam and report may have been ordered before the DQA was available. As with the above, ask ‘em.

The scores reported on the Sarin report are based on the pre-2005 proportion based grading scale. In that system the final proportions grade is the worst of the ones listed and the final cut grade includes that as well as a visual determination of the polish and symmetry. These are not particularly good evidence that a stone is AGS-ideal on the current system although it may very well be.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[jpk1102]

The date of the DQR on this diamond is 8/22/07.

Does this mean the Sarin report (using all the lesser pre 2005 AGS 0 ratings info) was done prior to 8/22/07 and the vendor then went back and got a NEWER DQR which doesn''t show the cut?

So that would mean they are giving the stone a cut grade "Round Ideal Cut" based on old less stringent Sarin AGS ) ratings information and then the rest of the information on the diamond on the new 8/27/07 DQR. That would seem to be VERY misleading to the buyer.

I am definately going to investigate this more with them.........

 

[denverappraiser]

No. This report format is shipped free with the Sarin software and it includes information that lots of people find interesting in a fairly well organized way so lots of dealers use it. Sarin is an equipment and software manufacturer and they are not related to AGS beyond a certain level of cooperation and the fact that a lot of AGS members use Sarin equipment. I will often use this same report in my appraisal reports for this reason. The Sarin scan produces quite a bit of information and there are several report formats shipped with it that display the data in different ways. The user can even create their own formats if they want. DiamCalc takes it to an extreme and has a 10 page report with every possible piece of info in a huge table that only a mathematician could love while some prefer to have a simple graphic with half a dozen measurements on it. More information isn’t always helpful in making a decision. I think it’s very likely that DQR was chosen because it’s cheaper, that the Sarin report was included because they thought you would find it helpful in making a decision, and that the ‘ideal’ determination was made by the dealer themselves based on experience using the AGS grading system and an educated estimation that this is what AGS would call it. None of this is evidence of an intent to deceive but rather an effort to keep the price down. Diamonds have become a very competitive business and every dollar counts. They are asking you to rely on the dealer for the cut grading estimation rather than an AGSL grader and, in exchange, they can offer a lower price. It’s up to you to make a determination if this is a good trade off. Most people are ok with this, which is why they do it that way but it’s not most people who need to walk away happy from this deal. It’s your vote that counts since it’s your money on the table.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/15/2007 1:16:38 PM
Author: denverappraiser

No. This report format is shipped free with the Sarin software and it includes information that lots of people find interesting in a fairly well organized way so lots of dealers use it. Sarin is an equipment and software manufacturer and they are not related to AGS beyond a certain level of cooperation and the fact that a lot of AGS members use Sarin equipment. I will often use this same report in my appraisal reports for this reason. The Sarin scan produces quite a bit of information and there are several report formats shipped with it that display the data in different ways. The user can even create their own formats if they want. DiamCalc takes it to an extreme and has a 10 page report with every possible piece of info in a huge table that only a mathematician could love while some prefer to have a simple graphic with half a dozen measurements on it. More information isn’t always helpful in making a decision. I think it’s very likely that DQR was chosen because it’s cheaper, that the Sarin report was included because they thought you would find it helpful in making a decision, and that the ‘ideal’ determination was made by the dealer themselves based on experience using the AGS grading system and an educated estimation that this is what AGS would call it. None of this is evidence of an intent to deceive but rather an effort to keep the price down. Diamonds have become a very competitive business and every dollar counts. They are asking you to rely on the dealer for the cut grading estimation rather than an AGSL grader and, in exchange, they can offer a lower price. It’s up to you to make a determination if this is a good trade off. Most people are ok with this, which is why they do it that way but it’s not most people who need to walk away happy from this deal. It’s your vote that counts since it’s your money on the table.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Neil is right. We request DQRs for all Expert Selection diamonds sent to AGSL, even those which have ideal light performance. This is because A Cut Above is our "all the bells and whistles" brand (all have AGS Ideal DQDs). The whole premise of Expert Selection is "best value for the money" and the less costly DQR helps us sell ES diamonds at a lower price.

The term round ideal has been used by our company since the 1996-2005 ideal proportions-based grading system existed and is very strict. We will not advertise a diamond as "AGS Ideal" unless it's accompanied by an AGS DQD, even if it does have ideal light performance. Once in a while you'll find a stray Expert Selection diamond with a DQD. It's rare but it happens; usually a diamond for which we ordered a DQD, but was kept from being in our ACA line after it returned from the lab for some reason of Brian Gavin's.

Please feel free to contact us about a specific diamond - we're happy to answer any questions you may have.

 

[jpk1102]

Thank all of you for clarification. I certainly didn''t mean to imply that WF was misleading,

I just got it in my head that there was something out of place based on Neils commens "The scores reported on the Sarin report are based on the pre-2005 proportion based grading scale. In that system the final proportions grade is the worst of the ones listed and the final cut grade includes that as well as a visual determination of the polish and symmetry. These are not particularly good evidence that a stone is AGS-ideal on the current system although it may very well be."

Everything I''ve seen so far, tells me this is a great diamond.

I am a newbie to all this and I do appreciate all the wonderful education I''ve garnered from this forum. Heck, I even bought an Ideal Scope yesterday for a one-time diamond purchase, and not a high dollar one at that! I am known, however, in totally unrelated circles as a gadget queen!

I guess the bottom line is, if most of the numbers look right and we like the diamond that''s all that matters. FYI John, I''ll be looking at this diamond and others next Friday at WF. I''m really looking forward to seeing the dazzle up close and I know whatever my son picks, it will be beautiful and that we can trust in the WF name and reputation.

Thanks again Neil and John for the education and clarification.

 

[johngalt2004]

Date: 9/15/2007 3:08:04 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 9/15/2007 1:16:38 PM
Author: denverappraiser

No. This report format is shipped free with the Sarin software and it includes information that lots of people find interesting in a fairly well organized way so lots of dealers use it. Sarin is an equipment and software manufacturer and they are not related to AGS beyond a certain level of cooperation and the fact that a lot of AGS members use Sarin equipment. I will often use this same report in my appraisal reports for this reason. The Sarin scan produces quite a bit of information and there are several report formats shipped with it that display the data in different ways. The user can even create their own formats if they want. DiamCalc takes it to an extreme and has a 10 page report with every possible piece of info in a huge table that only a mathematician could love while some prefer to have a simple graphic with half a dozen measurements on it. More information isn’t always helpful in making a decision. I think it’s very likely that DQR was chosen because it’s cheaper, that the Sarin report was included because they thought you would find it helpful in making a decision, and that the ‘ideal’ determination was made by the dealer themselves based on experience using the AGS grading system and an educated estimation that this is what AGS would call it. None of this is evidence of an intent to deceive but rather an effort to keep the price down. Diamonds have become a very competitive business and every dollar counts. They are asking you to rely on the dealer for the cut grading estimation rather than an AGSL grader and, in exchange, they can offer a lower price. It’s up to you to make a determination if this is a good trade off. Most people are ok with this, which is why they do it that way but it’s not most people who need to walk away happy from this deal. It’s your vote that counts since it’s your money on the table.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Neil is right. We request DQRs for all Expert Selection diamonds sent to AGSL, even those which have ideal light performance. This is because A Cut Above is our ''all the bells and whistles'' brand (all have AGS Ideal DQDs). The whole premise of Expert Selection is ''best value for the money'' and the less costly DQR helps us sell ES diamonds at a lower price.

The term round ideal has been used by our company since the 1996-2005 ideal proportions-based grading system existed and is very strict. We will not advertise a diamond as ''AGS Ideal'' unless it''s accompanied by an AGS DQD, even if it does have ideal light performance. Once in a while you''ll find a stray Expert Selection diamond with a DQD. It''s rare but it happens; usually a diamond for which we ordered a DQD, but was kept from being in our ACA line after it returned from the lab for some reason of Brian Gavin''s.

Please feel free to contact us about a specific diamond - we''re happy to answer any questions you may have.

I don''t think I understand this explanation. A natural assumption would be that a DQR would only be preferred for a diamond that will not earn a zero cut score either for finish or light performance. No other explanation really stands up to common sense. But AGS is not helping by not scoring the finish with precision on the DQR (excellent is the highest score on DQR where ideal is the highest score on DQD). AGS seems to have in effect neutralized the finish difference between ideal and excellent on the DQR. That seems "less than direct" if not outright dishonest by AGS. This document seems to in fact be very inferior since CUT is the ags'' bread and butter, and they''re taking a pass on scoring it??? Yeah I know here is a newb copping an attitude toward AGS ha ha. But I''m just saying... from a reasonably intelligent layman''s perspective, the DQR smells.

I love whiteflash and am not trying to knock them, but it would not make any marketing sense to squelch an ags zero score for the rationale that the swankier certificate only goes with the ACA. I would question that marketing decision. Of course my income statement probably is a very sorry thing to look at next to Whiteflash''s, so maybe they understand marketing better than me. If I could pay another $50-$100 for a certificate which would let me charge an extra $1000, I''d probably kinda sorta purchase and publish the DQD whenever it scored a zero for cut.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

how did you come up with the 100 dollar price difference quote? just random?

Also, though i really ought to stay out of this one, I had a little thought though I am giong to try to stay clear of math in my explanatin and just make it more of a logical argument.

I was thinking say that they charge X% more for the ACA title, but could only charge X/2% more for a solitary AGS0 title without the ACA title.

So, they have two choices, to be honest and select only the ones that Bryan personally feels qualify as ACA be selected for that title, thus meaning that some AGS0's are disqualified, or to simplay make the ACA title nothing more than a restatement of what the AGS cert says, wihch people would quickly recognize and thus lose trust in WF.

but then you get into the problem that alot of there customers are going to put as much faith in the AGS0 title as they do in there ACA title. However, those same people that are looking for AGS0, in the absence of a "true" AGS0, would decide to purchase an ACA hand selected AGS0.

Thus, if they offered the alternative of ES AGS0's regularly they would regularly be sacrificing ACA sales to those customers who sought out TRUE REPORTED and VERIFIED at the AGS LAB AGS0's and that would then result in less ACA sales, and they wuld have made more money if they had not offered that diamond as an AGS0, but instead as an AGSL thereby turning that customer onto the ACA with larger profit margins.

then of course it offers a niche for the true diamond savy to come in and inspect the data, angles, IS images and so on of the AGSL documents t determine what is a true AGS0 diamonds themselves. then having confidence in the performance that those angles and data are presenting WF has a cheaper alternative than the competitors who give every diamond that woudl recieve and AGS0 a DQD. Thereby allowing WF to market to both the consumers who want AGS0 and to chart a greater premium for there ACA title associate with that, and to the market that cares more about angles and the actual performance f the diamond itself, rather than titles. Thereby, perhaps, maximizing profits?


Anther possibility is, of course, that the ACA title is given to essentially 100% of the in-house AGS0 diamonds. If nearly every single diamond that performs at the ideal level is labeled ACA then that would essentially render the ACA title meaningless. Therefore, if the company offered ES stones with DQD documents and there was a noticable shortage of AGS0 performing diamonds in those DQD's then the only explanaiton is that by recieiving an AGS0 it is tagged as an ACA and consumers would quickly recognize that the ACA title is equivalent to the AGS0 title and they would then stop paying premiums for the ACA title when they could get the same thing with an AGS0 title elsewhere.
But by not regularly using the DQD for ES stones the company can then say that many of those are AGS0 quality diamonds but didnt make there own high standards--true or not--thus making the ACA in fact look better than the AGS0 title and thereby explaining its premium-- while not actually selling any (or at least selling VERY FEW) AGS0 diamonds in the ES, and there is simply not enough data to refute them, for diamonds that might not make the cut may have similar proportions and then the company can always point to those examples as examples of there stringent standarads which may not in fact exist.

Anyway, that would just be a matter of trusting them, and while I do not trust the company itself 100% (I pretty much dont trust any company 100%), I do trust JQ, and I am positive that he will work with anyone to make sure that they get a beautiful diamond at a fair price and go out of his way to do what he can to inform you properly--you certainly wont be making any stupid decisions or making any GROSS overpayments with him helping you. Which is much more than can be said about most in the industry that I have encountered, or, for that sake, most in the world.

 

[johngalt2004]

Yeah just random... a wild guess. The actual fees don''t seem to be on the AGS site ("The Trade" does not seem to be very transparent lol).

Will someone reveal the true cost difference for these reports?

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

do a search, there are a few threads about it, not specifics about AGS though, but I think GIA has some public data available, I dont have any more time to search for where it was though. And let me know what you think of my lengthy rambling above. I do have alot of respect for WF though, especially JQ, as I summarized in my final paragraph.

 

[johngalt2004]

Before I even read your post above I want to say that I love WF too and if I had not gotten deep in bed with a local guy on this transaction I would be happily spending my money there. But it would be on an ACA and nothing but. I don't think all the cards are on the table about the ES, but I think they represent a giant discount on a stellar diamond no matter how you slice it and I love WF. They seem to me to be a very high class outfit and I am not trying to accuse them of anything here.

Now I've read your post and it is eloquent and insightful and I think lays out the picture very well.

One more thing... I don't think ACAs are overpriced... not one bit... I think WF offers the best value/$ I've seen on the net and I don't see a mysterious indefensible premium on those ACAs. They seem quite competitive to me with other "true zeros" on the market. If anything I think it is possible that the new AGS performance based system is "too good" and may be something of a spoiler for the companies with branded H&A cuts... giving them tough choices to make as you pointed out above.

It is very very very likely I'm wrong about this, but it seems to me that nowadays a zero is a zero and not too much can go wrong with a documented ags zero cut.

I still am going to make it my business to buy something from WF some day because I love Lesley and John from my limited phone and message board interactions with them.

 

[jpk1102]

Since I brought up the case in this actual diamond, I''m going to put in my humble two cents.

I would like to second the reasoning made by WHFSR in her lengthly post. I''m not sure I understand everything she presented, but there are a couple of things I definately agree with.

I''m new to this.....and struggling to learn. That''s why I posted this specific diamond as an example, it met the criteria johngalt2004 was discussing. From all the posts I''ve read, WF rightfully puts great pride and discrimination into their ACA diamonds.

And I too trust the explanation John Q has given. Although I''ve never met him, I can tell you I have read a couple of hundred of his posts since I recently joined the forum, and before that when I was lurking out there for several weeks! My estimatin is that he is an absolutely straight shooting guy.

What John has explained makes perfect sense to me in the instance of this diamond and the choice of choosing a DQR report. Even though the specs indicated otherwise, WF applied THEIR strict in-house quality control decisions and for whatever reason rejected this diamond for ACA rating and sent it through AGS as an ES diamond for which they only get DQR''s.

As far as the AGS goes and the DQR vs. DQD and whatever "implied" inconsistencies there might be, it is up to us as buyers to discriminate. Get as much info as you can, and make a reasonable decision based on that information.

 

[denverappraiser]

I’ll let WF defend their own marketing decisions but I’m happy to step forward on behalf of AGS. Bear in mind that although I am a proud AGS member and an AGS titleholder, I do not work for or speak for the lab or AGS as a whole.

The DQR is intended to be more directly comparable to reports issued by GIA and other labs. The GIA scale for symmetry and polish does not include a grade for ‘ideal’ and it’s easier to compare stones if everyone is using the same scales. Secondly, people tend to confuse finish grading (sym & pol) with cut grading and the use of the word ideal would surely aggravate this. If they were to include this word under ‘symmetry’ on a report it is highly likely to be misinterpreted to mean far more than it does. I agree that the double standard is a bit confusing and that and obvious solution would be for them is to drop the DQR as a product offering when a DQD is available or to drop ‘ideal’ from the scales used for polish and symmetry. They too have marketing issues to wrestle with and, believe it or not, some folks don’t like their cut grading system. AGSL is in the business of selling services and to the extent that they have clients who want their services without the whole cut grading business, it’s a reasonable decision for them to offer them. Some people want the clarity/color grading service without the cut grading service. They have other products that apply only to a very narrow group of their clients so what is so fundamentally wrong with offering this one?

On stones like Pears and Marquises, where there is not currently a cut grade available, DQD’s aren’t even a choice. DQD is available only for modern cut rounds, certain square brilliants (princesses) and certain rectangular and square step cuts (emeralds and asschers) while DQR in the only option for all others. (Coming soon are DQD’s for ovals).

The selling premium for DQD’s over DQR’s is nothing like as lucrative as you suggest or you would be quite right, every possible stone would have one. The ACA line and similar premium dealer lines include other value added features beyond the brand of the lab report. I’m not one to say what things are the most useful or desirable to you because they are different for every person but it’s crazy to attribute the entire premium to one attribute for the same reason that the upgrade in a new car trim package that results in intermittent wipers can all be attributed to the cost of the windshield wipers. If you don’t know what you get in the trim package, ask your sales person. If you still don’t know, or you don’t consider it to be sufficiently valuable to justify the things that you actually want, don’t buy it. They have plenty of competitors who offer a different assortment of benefits for buying from them and who can provide you with a stone that has a DQD and perhaps without some of the falderal that you don’t value.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[jpk1102]

Neil, forgot to thank you in my prior post for your insights. Well said.

 

[johngalt2004]

As a customer I would pay a lot more to know I had a perf based AGS-0 versus a proportions only AGS-0 but I have been evolving fast and furious and may just be in a phase. From all the searching I''ve done the perf based zero takes most of the guesswork out of things.

I have actually been thinking about this quite a bit. I wondered about the correlation between H&A, HCA Excellent Scores, and AGS 0. So I did a cut quality search of all AGS 0 up to 3 carats and got 156 hits. Strong majority were H&A, and super overwhelming majority had excellent HCA scores.

I observed quickly that every WF that wasn''t H&A was also not a confirmable zero (now I see that is because they had DQR instead of DQDs - I did not understand that at the time I did my study). There were 35 of those. From the way I was going about my search it looked like they lacked in symmetry/polish but now I understand that was not a safe conclusion to draw because of the different terminology used. As of this moment I still don''t know what to make of them - how many of those 35 are real zeros and how many are proportion only zeros is not knowable and perhaps that is by an intelligent design. On the other hand, JA had plenty of zeros without the H&A designation. 10 to be specific. GOG had 1. In the search engine GOG showed more "non H&A" but when I checked the link they were mostly listed on their site as H&A with the photos to match. The only non-H&A that I could see pics of was on GOG site, and it was a bad H&A pattern with broken arrows and imperfect hearts - but close to H&A.

By the way the instance of bad HCA scores was practically negligible. Only 7 scored over 2, and only 2 scored over 2.3.

One thing I am missing that I would truly love to see is the H&A photos from the zeros that JA did not list as top signature line H&A. I wonder if they are just picky about the precise H&A pattern or if there are really that many zeros that are not even close to H&A.

It would be great if somebody with easier access to the information and tools could step up and show several examples (with photos) of perf based zeros that are non-H&A. I would really like to see that.

But as to my value perception as a consumer, I would buy an ACA in a heartbeat and probably will one day, but it would not be for the H&A pattern per se. Just to have assurance of a stellar top drawer cut from a top drawer vendor. And a performance based AGS 0 certificate is worth a lot to me from the studying I''ve done. Like worth a good 10-15% to me (maybe more) over any weaker certificate. May be crazy but it is true.

Ramblings of a newb.... give credence at your peril

 

[Regular Guy]

Interesting points being made here...

I have a question...is WF sometimes using GIA and sometimes the DQR...and if so...what's the conjecture for when one is used over the other?

A comment to Working...who is a guy...right...I follow the gist of what you're saying, and am glad someone is trying to ferret out the possibilities. A bit thick for me, though...you may want to go for Ockham's razor...or at least try summary bullets...

And to Neil...in context...

Date: 9/16/2007 3:53:12 PM
Author: denverappraiser
They too have marketing issues to wrestle with and, believe it or not, some folks don’t like their cut grading system. AGSL is in the business of selling services and to the extent that they have clients who want their services without the whole cut grading business, it’s a reasonable decision for them to offer them.

I think it's reasonable to guess that WF uniquely would select their DQR where a DQD would still get their 0, only to support their ACA line...and that otherwise...you can predict a DQR is selected only because zero would not otherwise be earned...or because the vendor either hopes to do some kind of tom foolery, representing the poorer cut as an AGS...or they hoped it would make zero, found it did not, and stayed with AGS for grading anyway

Some people want the clarity/color grading service without the cut grading service.

Um....right.

They have other products that apply only to a very narrow group of their clients so what is so fundamentally wrong with offering this one?

On stones like Pears and Marquises, where there is not currently a cut grade available, DQD’s aren’t even a choice. DQD is available only for modern cut rounds, certain square brilliants (princesses) and certain rectangular and square step cuts (emeralds and asschers)

Asschers already? Have any appeared yet?

while DQR in the only option for all others. (Coming soon are DQD’s for ovals).

The selling premium for DQD’s over DQR’s is nothing like as lucrative as you suggest or you would be quite right, every possible stone would have one.

Although it could make sense that it's possible for the earnings for a process to make anything happen as fast as you want it...I was lead to believe that AGS is not quick for reasons beyond their preferred control...though I'll not speculate how lucrative the whole program to be.

The ACA line and similar premium dealer lines include other value added features beyond the brand of the lab report. I’m not one to say what things are the most useful or desirable to you because they are different for every person but it’s crazy to attribute the entire premium to one attribute for the same reason that the upgrade in a new car trim package that results in intermittent wipers can all be attributed to the cost of the windshield wipers. If you don’t know what you get in the trim package, ask your sales person. If you still don’t know, or you don’t consider it to be sufficiently valuable to justify the things that you actually want, don’t buy it. They have plenty of competitors who offer a different assortment of benefits for buying from them and who can provide you with a stone that has a DQD and perhaps without some of the falderal that you don’t value.

Neil, I don't think you're actually stretching this way...but I wonder the extent to which a shopper could ask them to be more like Rhino, and ask them to speculate with authority about the extent to which a particular ES, non DQD earning diamond would have earned the DQD...if only it had been submitted for one.

...and...a final stretch of thought...

Although JQ offers:

"The whole premise of Expert Selection is "best value for the money" and the less costly DQR helps us sell ES diamonds at a lower price."

As with good marketing insight (and never a technical slouch, too), JQ uses that clever word above: helps.

Despite the comment...what is the possibility that...given the 5% discount given to ACAs to Pricescope readers, and the 2.5% discount instead given to ES's...although previous analysis has never actually suggested this to me...I wonder if any PS purchaser should really squint hard at an ES over an ACA, given the relative variance...not that many ESs are that shabby.

This last point is just intended to mix with Working's long piece that could use some tightening...if it weren't so Bayesian in nature...because the propositions are all after the fact.

BTW...I have not been paid for these comments.

 

[denverappraiser]

Rhino and WF are direct competitors who approach things in a different way but both roads lead to the same place. Happy customers. Rhino is a well-equipped and capable grader and his expertise is one of the reasons that people buy from GOG because it’s included for ‘free’ as part of the bundle. As far as I know, he doesn’t offer a selection of stones that have been pre-approved to meet some branded set of standards that he’s established but rather each offer is customized to each customer’s needs and he uses his own skills and those of his staff to assist shoppers in choosing just the right thing for them. WF takes the approach of prescreening stones that meet a pre-established set of standards even going so far as to provide specific instructions to the cutters on how to produce stones exactly the way they like them. To say that they apply their ACA standards zealously is an understatement and Brian is a true master. There’s not a short answer of which approach is better. There’s not even a long answer. Both are excellent and they are simply different. Choose a random ACA and you can be confident that it’ll be lovely. Spend 20 minutes on the phone or email with Jonathan or one of his crew and you can be confident that it will end in a solid and sensible recommendation unless your requirements are simply unreasonable. WF does a lot of work up front. GOG works hard on each deal. Both have legions of satisfied customers and both are way ahead of the pack in the race to go that extra mile. If all jewelers were as good as these two, I and other independent appraisers would have a lot less business looking at unmounted new diamonds. They, along with Wink, Mark, Jim, Barry, David and many others are the vanguard of a new kind of jeweler that your grandmother wouldn’t even recognize as a way to buy diamonds. With all respect to my wife (who is a grandmother), Grandma’s wrong on this one, these guys deserve your attention and they can definitely give her local jeweler some stiff competition.

My reference to a lucrative business had to do with JohnGalt's suggestion that $50 invested in an upgraded report would result in $1000 in added revenue, not a comment on the general business of publishing 'certificates'.

Could you ask WF to act like Rhino? Sure, you can ask. They’re pretty cooperative folks and they’ll probably do whatever they can to make a deal. On the other hand, if what you want is Rhino, why not just talk to him in the first place?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[jpk1102]

WHFSR............ well heck, if you are a guy, sorry for the wrong-gender implication.

I just assumed "working hard for small rewards" meant us women!

Hey guys, I''m off this one, I am so outta my league on this..............but I do admore your knowledge.......all of you!

 

[Regular Guy]

A quick check of the gas tank on this thread...I'd say it's running on low now, but may not be empty.

A thought omitted from my previous post, but seems like it needs to be said...JQ earns the trust of a lot of people, and you can see it here. He seems to earn his keep, and further, makes a valuable contribution to this board, a separate but valued piece.

Similarly...backing up a couple of recently satisfied users...Neil, you seem to not only offer great work for customers...but on this board...present some of the most enjoyably gathered text I've seen anywhere.

But...just to get narrow on you...

Date: 9/16/2007 5:49:01 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Choose a random ACA and you can be confident that it’ll be lovely. Appraisals in Denver

The topic here is really not so much ACA but ES.

Though I mentioned a competitor to provide an easy example...I'm really wasn't trying so much to stretch for one of the more grand mysteries...like putting the average or best option from GOG & WF into a hopper, and figuring out which one we think is better. Or if it's even meaningful to ask this sort of question. For now, sticking with WF was the topic.

Reviewing my questions again to see if they're of interest or relevant to others:

- still GIA or AGS for ESs, and if so...why one or the other, would anyone think (and WF is welcome to comment). It's actually possible they don't even use GIA on new options...but I don't know that.

- Asshers for AGS now? (edited to add...I can see one AGS assher of any size on the big price list on this board...and it's for a DQR...but maybe they'r coming soon?).

- to decide whether to go with an ACA or ES…you could ask at WF. But…they’re a big organization, this is a public board, and we don’t want to burden them with crazy shoppers too much. Oh…what the heck…it’s just us, right? Any good strategies for ways to ask the question to get the sort of answer you’d like to trust? Some version of which would you pick and why is probably maxing out…but…maybe someone clever knows the secret question to get a more definitive answer.

With warm regards,

 

[johngalt2004]

Say, would it be a reasonable proposition to say to any vendor "I''ll take it at the current price plus triple the additional price of the AGS assessment if it comes back a performance based zero. If not I''ll pass." Would any vendor ever take up a customer on a proposal like this for a fuzzy zero?

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/16/2007 2:50:57 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

Anther possibility is, of course, that the ACA title is given to essentially 100% of the in-house AGS0 diamonds. If nearly every single diamond that performs at the ideal level is labeled ACA then that would essentially render the ACA title meaningless. Therefore, if the company offered ES stones with DQD documents and there was a noticable shortage of AGS0 performing diamonds in those DQD's then the only explanaiton is that by recieiving an AGS0 it is tagged as an ACA and consumers would quickly recognize that the ACA title is equivalent to the AGS0 title and they would then stop paying premiums for the ACA title when they could get the same thing with an AGS0 title elsewhere.
But by not regularly using the DQD for ES stones the company can then say that many of those are AGS0 quality diamonds but didnt make there own high standards--true or not--thus making the ACA in fact look better than the AGS0 title and thereby explaining its premium-- while not actually selling any (or at least selling VERY FEW) AGS0 diamonds in the ES, and there is simply not enough data to refute them, for diamonds that might not make the cut may have similar proportions and then the company can always point to those examples as examples of there stringent standarads which may not in fact exist.

It's been a couple hours...I'll just conjecture....

Re WF's choice of AGS or GIA...until we hear otherwise...and it's always possible the flip of a coin wins the choice...seems like the easiest to understand scenario (and a quick check suggests new options still go to GIA for ES's) could be that:

I - options are sent to AGS always with the hope of getting a zero, but when they don't get this...get the DQR. (I think we understand AGS will cooperate with any vendor in making this kind of choice). And...they would only hope they'd get the zero because they would have labelled it an ACA otherwise. So...this is conjecture they are misses, on account of AGS's verdict.

II What, then, goes to GIA? One of two ways seem to make sense:

a) they don't want them to head towards ACA for reasons of their own standards, and so are never intended to get the ACA...so they go to GIA. This option is most consistent with WF's stated position, and we might think, given this thinking...these options are more likely to get the zero. Well, or not. But the logic here says that for reasons of not making WF's internal cut, anyway, they are rejected at the outset for being ACA's....maybe they'd make zero or not...but they're not H&A and aren't deemed to have the full ACA package look, are not headed at the outset for DQDs...and so they go to GIA.

b) or...these options, more simply thought, WF regards could never get a zero...so...just like the behavior of any vendor, are not sent there (to AGS). But I can see, except for older ones without cut grades (returns?), all the several I looked at are graded excellent. Maybe this is good, or maybe this is farther from zero than the ones that WF at least thought could get the zero. I'm guessing if option (b) holds, they would probably be farther from zero than the AGS DQR ECs are, as conventional logic could suggest.

If you consider that AGS is persnickety on light performance for their 0, and WF is persnickety on hearts and arrows...it's possible their intersection isn't as huge as one might think.

Alternately...if my conjecture above makes any kind of sense...unless WF does want to weigh in further on this...

- the choice of cert may tell you more about closeness to 0 than you might know otherwise, but
- until whether II a or b is the case is clarified...you don't know which one puts you closer
- although...since in even IIa you're really only more assured a negative than a possible positive, again, until more info is in hand...seems like AGS...with limited info, and without a cut grade, might be a first choice...based on the thinking from number I above.

Of course, WF may tell you they flip coins in all cases.

Written with some apology, but also, in the face of what seems like some questions that are apparent enough, where anyone might be looking for some answers with just a little teeth.

Cause otherwise...why both AGS and GIA?

Regards,

 

[echelon6]

Date: 9/16/2007 8:08:14 PM
Author: johngalt2004
Say, would it be a reasonable proposition to say to any vendor ''I''ll take it at the current price plus triple the additional price of the AGS assessment if it comes back a performance based zero. If not I''ll pass.'' Would any vendor ever take up a customer on a proposal like this for a fuzzy zero?

I just read this thread tonight and I must say I agree with John Galt on this one. As a consumer who recently bought an ACA from WF, one reason why I wasnt comfortable at looking at the ES was because of their DQRs. I simply dismissed them as not capable of getting an Ideal in a DQD. If I knew this wasn''t true, I wouldve had more to choose from! In the end I went with an ACA because of a combination of reasons, but I would say there are many more consumers like myself who would likely go to GOG or another competitor because WF''s ES didn''t have DQDs (and none of the ACAs appealed to them).

If given the option above as John Galt suggested, I personally would definitely take the chance and pay a few extra hundred for the assurance of an AGS ideal

 

[elle_chris]

Interesting thread.
In the last year and a half, I''ve bought a 1ct from good old gold i had set into a pendant, and 5 .50 ACAs and ES stones from Whiteflash i had made into a ring.
Last week, i took my pendant and ring downstairs and looked at them all in direct sunlight, shaded tree, cloudy day and pretty much every type of lighting
environment from my office to Starbucks. All the stones had various reports. GIA excellents, DQD Ideals, and DQR excellent.
At work, I had asked a few friends if they could see a difference in how the stones performed, not one could. At home I asked my husband the same, and after giving me that ''woman you''re crazy look", he couldn''t either. After trying over and over to see some discernible difference I realized it was just impossible (at least for me).
Bottom line, Next April I''m getting another ring made and when it comes time to choosing a stone, the only thing that''s going to matter to me is who has the inventory that i''m looking for with the best price. I don''t care if it''s an ACA, ES or a stone from GOG. I realized that as long as either of the vendors confirms the stone is good, i won''t be able to tell the difference between any of them. It''s much like when people here say "why choose a vvs when you can get an eyeclean stone of lesser clarity"? Why should I choose one over the other if the differences are so minute I can''t see them? Just for the pedigree? I won''t do that. Again, for me, it''s just a matter of who has what I''m looking for when it comes time to buy again.

 

[Ellen]

elle, great post. And I agree, as long as you have a really well cut diamond, and a vendors backing, it doesn''t matter.

 

[strmrdr]

What I find kinda funny with rounds is that the criteria that Brian uses for ACA and Jon uses for his h&a selections and Paul for his infinity line is far beyond what AGS takes into consideration.
So what real use/value of the AGS round cut grade other than too make people feel good about the purchase?

With princess cuts there is some value since they redefined the princess cut when they came up with the grading system.
The jury is still out on the other shapes.

 

[johngalt2004]

Good question strmrdr. I guess I don''t want to put blind faith in any vendor''s branded stones... that''s what Tiffany buyers do (to a different degree). I like AGS paper as an objective confirmation of value.

Also I still want to see the real AGS zeros that are rejected as branded cuts... in pictures. Have only seen one on GOG''s site and it was a weak H&A pattern. Can''t see pics of the JA zeros that don''t make the branded cut... but would really like to. But I don''t want to ask him because I would just be tire-kicking (I already have the intention of buying from WF if my relationship with my local vendor unravels).

By the way - I''m only talking about a "big ticket" (for me) present for my wife when I talk about needing a zero. For myself (or for a more typical annual type present, earrings etc) I would probably happily buy a "good bargain EGL" with a very good cut and be done with it and save the dough.

For a special anniversary ring I want it to be top shelf and for me it includes AGS 0 but not necessarily a branded cut.

Can anybody link to some pics (ideal scope and H&A views) of ags zeros that fell short of earning a e-boutique''s branded cut?