Question on contrast deduction on DQD

[agc]

What does it mean when an AGS performance based report gives a contrast deduction of 0.11 and the other 10 factors are 0 for an overall AGS 0. Does this mean there is a problem with not enough contrast? Too much contrast? And how significant is a 0.11 deduction even though it did not reduce the diamond to AGS 1. Thanks.

 

[JulieN]

can you list the proportions?

 

[strmrdr]

Contrast is interesting in the AGS system.
too much, too little and wrong places can all get deductions.
Having had some combos ran thru the software they must be grading it in zones as 2 combos with the same overall contrast areas but in different places get different deductions.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/23/2008 7:40:15 PM
Author:agc
What does it mean when an AGS performance based report gives a contrast deduction of 0.11 and the other 10 factors are 0 for an overall AGS 0. Does this mean there is a problem with not enough contrast? Too much contrast? And how significant is a 0.11 deduction even though it did not reduce the diamond to AGS 1. Thanks.

Nothing perceivable to the naked eye. An 0.11 deduction could even mean the stone has slightly more apparent brightness overall than one with 0s across the board our eyes love contrast, we are genetically hardwired for it. Having the contrast next to a bright area actually can make the bright look brighter than if it was just bright. Just for your information there would need to be >0.50 of cumulative deductions (5x as much) before the stone would be categorized as a 1 in performance. Seasoned pros may have a hard time distinguishing between 0 and 1 and perhaps 2. These are strong performance grades. It seems a shame to me that most people will not even look at them because of the perception that a 2 must be way ugly. That is why there are often some great deals in the AGS2 grades.

Wink

 

[Rhino]

I see ideals quite frequently that take minute hits in this category. I can tell you with all confidence it is nothing that results in any decrease in optics that one can see with their eyes.

 

[agc]

Thanks to all for your help. These are the dimensions 6.40 - 6.44 x 3.93 mm, table 58.7%, crown angle 34.9 degrees. pavillion 40.9 degrees, depth 61.4%, girdle 1.6% - 4.3%, culet pointed, carat wt 1.007, color E and clarity VS2

 

[Rhino]

And with all that do you also know lower girdle length and stars? If you''ve downloaded the Gem Advisor software perhaps we can build you a virtual model. With those angles the reason it took the hit in contrast is most likely because you may have red where they typically look for blue in the ASET image. If optical symmetry is nice shouldn''t be a prob. You got any images?

 

[agc]

Rhino, i do not know the lower girdle length or stars. When looking thru the H&A viewer the hearts are quite symetric but there are splits at the V''s. The polish and symmetry are graded ideal. Crown % is 14.6% and pavillion 43.1%. Unfortunately i also do not have pictures. Again, I really appreciate everyones assistance and have learned so much from this forum/site.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

You have a very interesting DQD there, since AGS does not use this kind of format anymore, and has only used it for a very short period of time.

Now, with an AGS-0, they do not list the details anymore. So, with a DQD of today, you would not see that tiny deduction of contrast anyway. All in all, nothing to worry about.

Live long,

 

[diagem]

Date: 4/24/2008 3:57:58 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
You have a very interesting DQD there, since AGS does not use this kind of format anymore, and has only used it for a very short period of time.

Now, with an AGS-0, they do not list the details anymore. So, with a DQD of today, you would not see that tiny deduction of contrast anyway. All in all, nothing to worry about.

Live long,

What made AGS decide to stop listing a detail from their overly detailed reports?

Just a question out of curiosity...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/24/2008 4:17:11 AM
Author: DiaGem
What made AGS decide to stop listing a detail from their overly detailed reports?

Just a question out of curiosity...

Being very blunt here....
Too prevent questions like this one and give the illusion that all AGS0 cuts are equal.
It also makes it easier on not so well trained sales staff that they dont have too try and explain something they dont understand.

 

[niceice]

Date: 4/24/2008 4:17:11 AM
Author: DiaGem
What made AGS decide to stop listing a detail from their overly detailed reports?

Probably because somebody realized that stating numerical values for Brilliance, Dispersion and Scintillation might cause consumers to be concerned about differences that our eyes can not perceive with any degree of accuracy. This thread certainly could be viewed as evidence that such an assumption might be correct. Diamonds that are crafted with the precision necessary to receive AGS Ideal 0 (the top grade of 11 possible) are considered to be equal.

Note that when a diamond receives an Overall Cut Grade of AGS Ideal 0, that is all that is stated within the cut grade section in the main body of the lab report - the individual grades for Light Performance 0, Proportions Factors 0, Finish 0 (Polish and Symmetry = Ideal) are stated on a fold out flap which is located to the right side of the document. However if a diamond has an Overall Cut Grade lower than AGS Ideal 0, such as AGS Excellent 1, then the individual characteristics are stated within the body of the document to provide immediate insight to the buyer as to what factor(s) contributed to the overall lowering of the cut grade. For those not familiar with the AGS cut grade system, the overall cut grade defaults to the grade of the lowest factor, so a diamond with AGS Ideal visual performance and a Polish grade of Excellent (1) will default to AGS Excellent-1 even if all the other factors are AGS Ideal because that is the lowest contributing factor to the cut grade.

Similar concerns are often expressed by customers who are looking at the results of a Gem Ex Brilliance Scope scan, they see the sections that rate Brilliance, Dispersion and Scintillation in the form of Low / Medium / High / Very High and automatically assume that all three of the bars have to be at the far right of the scale within the Very High range for the diamond to be beautiful. However the scale is not as defined as it appears to be, the fact is that 80% of the scale occurs between the left edge of Low to the upper edge of Medium, the remaining 20% occurs between the low edge of High to the upper end of Very High and thus the actual scale is skewed in such a way that it is unclear to consumers that diamonds that "score" within the range of High to Very High are already well in to the range of the Top 20% of the scale.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/24/2008 11:48:55 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/24/2008 4:17:11 AM
Author: DiaGem
What made AGS decide to stop listing a detail from their overly detailed reports?

Just a question out of curiosity...

Being very blunt here....
Too prevent questions like this one and give the illusion that all AGS0 cuts are equal.
It also makes it easier on not so well trained sales staff that they dont have too try and explain something they dont understand.

I disagree with you Storm, you are apparently seeing communists behind every bush and conspiracies every where.

It was thought that listing values (X.XX for brightness, X.YZ for dispersion, etc) would cause consumers to be concerned about imperceptible differences. They were right, as this thread shows. Yes, I know that many of us here do not consider them equal, but then we are a bit more concerned about the imperceptible things than the average consumer. For the average consumer this is just too much information and will lead to consumers chasing after the 0 cut grade with all 0's in the component parts making the average AGS 0 hard to sell. That would be a travesty of common sense, but it is that fear voiced loudly by those in the trade that lead AGS to cease listing those number.

While I agree that it would be difficult for many sales staff to explain it, it would also be impossible for most humans to discern it with the eye and it needlessly causes stress in the consumer that we are trying to serve. It is not about the illusion Storm, it is about the reality that most people can not possibly observe the 0.11 deduction that is being questioned here and it is absurd on its face to cause unwarranted concern when people are being sold AGS 5's and 6's every day in the Mall stores and even in many independent stores. The purpose of the AGS paper is to engender confidence that value is being received, not to scare people about things they can not see.

I have been told but have not seen one yet, that the current DQDs still itemize the values for diamonds below the ideal grade. This is so consumers can see what aspect, if any, prevented it from reaching the top grade in performance.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/24/2008 1:06:15 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 4/24/2008 11:48:55 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/24/2008 4:17:11 AM
Author: DiaGem
What made AGS decide to stop listing a detail from their overly detailed reports?

Just a question out of curiosity...

Being very blunt here....
Too prevent questions like this one and give the illusion that all AGS0 cuts are equal.
It also makes it easier on not so well trained sales staff that they dont have too try and explain something they dont understand.

I disagree with you Storm, you are apparently seeing communists behind every bush and conspiracies every where.

It was thought that listing values (X.XX for brightness, X.YZ for dispersion, etc) would cause consumers to be concerned about imperceptible differences. They were right, as this thread shows. Yes, I know that many of us here do not consider them equal, but then we are a bit more concerned about the imperceptible things than the average consumer. For the average consumer this is just too much information and will lead to consumers chasing after the 0 cut grade with all 0''s in the component parts making the average AGS 0 hard to sell. That would be a travesty of common sense, but it is that fear voiced loudly by those in the trade that lead AGS to cease listing those number.

While I agree that it would be difficult for many sales staff to explain it, it would also be impossible for most humans to discern it with the eye and it needlessly causes stress in the consumer that we are trying to serve. It is not about the illusion Storm, it is about the reality that most people can not possibly observe the 0.11 deduction that is being questioned here and it is absurd on its face to cause unwarranted concern when people are being sold AGS 5''s and 6''s every day in the Mall stores and even in many independent stores. The purpose of the AGS paper is to engender confidence that value is being received, not to scare people about things they can not see.

I have been told but have not seen one yet, that the current DQDs still itemize the values for diamonds below the ideal grade. This is so consumers can see what aspect, if any, prevented it from reaching the top grade in performance.

Wink

rofl Wink you crack me up.
You said you disagree then agreed with every point I made.

 

[strmrdr]

Just for the record a .11 deduction in contrast is not something I would worry at all about.
But I also feel consumers should have this information if they want it.
When this was first announced that they were removing it I gave the same objections as it is not as transparent as giving all the data and I am all for giving people data!
We the people can handle it!

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/24/2008 1:33:38 PM
Author: strmrdr
Just for the record a .11 deduction in contrast is not something I would worry at all about.
But I also feel consumers should have this information if they want it.
When this was first announced that they were removing it I gave the same objections as it is not as transparent as giving all the data and I am all for giving people data!
We the people can handle it!

Perhaps YOU can, but many can not, as evidenced by our supplicant who was worried about it. The fact is that I do not think any one here could explain what exactly caused this .11 deduction without having the AGS software to look at the gem with, and perhaps not even then. How then are we to explain to our clients what caused the minuscule deduction what we do not know ourselves.

It really was overkill, and I am glad that it is gone. I already spend hundreds of hours a year studying to stay current, I do not have the time to convert it into thousands.

Even if it was all there, the only ones who could explain it all are the ones who developed the system, and they are a little busy right now working on the rest of the problems that remain to be solved.

Just my opinion of course, and I know that you can handle it, but I think even you will admit that YOU ARE THE EXCEPTION rather than the rule.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Thank you for the compliment Wink.
Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[diagem]

I kinda agree with storm..., (this is dedicated to you Wink..., since you asked nicely a few days ago....

).

On one aspect you AGS (freaks) claim the others top notch labs (like GIA, etc...) work for the industry''s interests at large...., and here you get a move from the AGS (who supposedly are all right out for the consumers...) mark off an existing (call) nuance from their grading report..., and why? For the excuse not to confuse the consumer as they cant notice it "anyways"!!

Wink..., I strongly believe that there are a few more nuances the majority of average consumers will not notice when looking at the Diamonds live!!! (with no tools involved)!


For the children...

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 4/24/2008 12:42:57 PM
Author: niceice

Date: 4/24/2008 4:17:11 AM
Author: DiaGem
What made AGS decide to stop listing a detail from their overly detailed reports?

Probably because somebody realized that stating numerical values for Brilliance, Dispersion and Scintillation might cause consumers to be concerned about differences that our eyes can not perceive with any degree of accuracy. This thread certainly could be viewed as evidence that such an assumption might be correct. Diamonds that are crafted with the precision necessary to receive AGS Ideal 0 (the top grade of 11 possible) are considered to be equal.

Amen to this answer from Todd!

There is a difference between a measureable difference and an appreciable difference, but many people don''t think about this when using a numerical barometer. People tend to think of things as better/worse, instead of equal but different in flavor, and using a numerical value only reinforces that tendency.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/24/2008 2:04:34 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 4/24/2008 12:42:57 PM
Author: niceice

Date: 4/24/2008 4:17:11 AM
Author: DiaGem
What made AGS decide to stop listing a detail from their overly detailed reports?

Probably because somebody realized that stating numerical values for Brilliance, Dispersion and Scintillation might cause consumers to be concerned about differences that our eyes can not perceive with any degree of accuracy. This thread certainly could be viewed as evidence that such an assumption might be correct. Diamonds that are crafted with the precision necessary to receive AGS Ideal 0 (the top grade of 11 possible) are considered to be equal.

Amen to this answer from Todd!

There is a difference between a measureable difference and an appreciable difference, but many people don''t think about this when using a numerical barometer. People tend to think of things as better/worse, instead of equal but different in flavor, and using a numerical value only reinforces that tendency.

Im gone till tonight after this post but wanted to say something.
People are paying for the measureable difference when they buy the AGS0, Wink has stated that he has seen some AGS1 and 2s that were a match for any AGS0 so if someone is paying for measureable differences they should be told what the are.
anyway its been fun.. storm out to dinner!

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/24/2008 2:01:32 PM
Author: DiaGem
I kinda agree with storm..., (this is dedicated to you Wink..., since you asked nicely a few days ago....

).

On one aspect you AGS (freaks) claim the others top notch labs (like GIA, etc...) work for the industry's interests at large...., and here you get a move from the AGS (who supposedly are all right out for the consumers...) mark off an existing (call) nuance from their grading report..., and why? For the excuse not to confuse the consumer as they cant notice it 'anyways'!!

Wink..., I strongly believe that there are a few more nuances the majority of average consumers will not notice when looking at the Diamonds live!!! (with no tools involved)!


For the children...

Thank you sweetie! The children are sleeping better now that they know Mom and Dad love them and are fighting again. The world just seems a better place now...

Wink

 

[Allison D.]

I'm not wholeheartedly convinced all consumers even *want* that degree of data. While some of the more techie folks here might, the overwhelming majority of consumers (I'd hazard to guess at least 95%) have no interest in it.

Rabid enthusiasts on Pricescope are surely fascinated by diamonds and want to learn/know every little thing there is to know about them, sure, but that's not reflecting of the other 95+% of the diamond-buying population.

I'm not a fan of data for the sake of data; if one doesn't know how to appropriately interpret it or doesn't understand its relevance to the overall picture, it's just a bunch of white noise. Garbage in/garbage out.

As mentioned, we saw a classic case of that here with the B/scope. People are hardwired to think good/better/best, and didn't understand how much emphasis the results should be given in the overall stone evaluation. Instead, it was "I don't want anything less then triple VH.

Another example: the HCA. People who don't learn how to interpret the results continue to misuse the results. We've been posters come who say "I want a diamond that scores an AGS0 and scores ex-ex-ex-ex on the HCA." They don't actually have any idea what those results mean, but it's labelled ex, so it MUST be the most desireable/best, right?

How many times have we seen posters who think a 0.8 is "better" than a 1.0 HCA score? Right. Data for the sake of data doesn't accomplish anything and, in fact, often has the opposite effect of spooking someone away from what is often a fabulous choice......especially if there's some other misguided soul telling him (erroneously) that the information suggests a defect.

Like other things, the most responsible approach is to consider whether the data will do more good than harm for the overwhelming majority. In this instance, I agree with the choice.

I'd be in favor of allowing a way to request that information for those who are interested/passionate enough to want it.

 

[oldminer]

We use a light behavior system which competes with Gemex. It provides us highly repeatable numbers for Brilliancy, Sparkle and Intensity per the definitions of the system. In practice, we have found that it is highly unproductive to give these numbers out to the trade or consumers in reports for retail selling. When one must teach staff what the slight differences in numbers mean and the simple response is "not much" one must ask "why even bother?". Of course, we want numbers for "grading" because we enjoy accuracy and use these numbers for other things, such as re-identification of specific stones or cut styles. My lab now uses High/Medium/Low subcategories in all three of the upper categories of performance and a single level for the lowest two grades since no one looking for a high performance stone will want a low one anyway. 11 total levels of each of three measures seems far enough to describe what needs to be described.

Keeping the categories simple, yet meaningful is the key here. We initially thought "numbers " were impressive, and they are to a small minority of folks, but broader grading categories do the job just as well and just as honestly. They are proving more popular with potential users, too. We should not force too much information onto the market unless it can handle it properly.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 4/24/2008 1:26:49 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/24/2008 1:06:15 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 4/24/2008 11:48:55 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/24/2008 4:17:11 AM
Author: DiaGem
What made AGS decide to stop listing a detail from their overly detailed reports?

Just a question out of curiosity...

Being very blunt here....
Too prevent questions like this one and give the illusion that all AGS0 cuts are equal.
It also makes it easier on not so well trained sales staff that they dont have too try and explain something they dont understand.

I disagree with you Storm, you are apparently seeing communists behind every bush and conspiracies every where.

It was thought that listing values (X.XX for brightness, X.YZ for dispersion, etc) would cause consumers to be concerned about imperceptible differences. They were right, as this thread shows. Yes, I know that many of us here do not consider them equal, but then we are a bit more concerned about the imperceptible things than the average consumer. For the average consumer this is just too much information and will lead to consumers chasing after the 0 cut grade with all 0''s in the component parts making the average AGS 0 hard to sell. That would be a travesty of common sense, but it is that fear voiced loudly by those in the trade that lead AGS to cease listing those number.

While I agree that it would be difficult for many sales staff to explain it, it would also be impossible for most humans to discern it with the eye and it needlessly causes stress in the consumer that we are trying to serve. It is not about the illusion Storm, it is about the reality that most people can not possibly observe the 0.11 deduction that is being questioned here and it is absurd on its face to cause unwarranted concern when people are being sold AGS 5''s and 6''s every day in the Mall stores and even in many independent stores. The purpose of the AGS paper is to engender confidence that value is being received, not to scare people about things they can not see.

I have been told but have not seen one yet, that the current DQDs still itemize the values for diamonds below the ideal grade. This is so consumers can see what aspect, if any, prevented it from reaching the top grade in performance.

Wink

rofl Wink you crack me up.
You said you disagree then agreed with every point I made.

LOL... the same thought went through my head as I read Wink''s response. Strm... I just think Wink likes disagreeing with you even if he does agree.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 4/23/2008 10:23:11 PM
Author: agc
Rhino, i do not know the lower girdle length or stars. When looking thru the H&A viewer the hearts are quite symetric but there are splits at the V''s. The polish and symmetry are graded ideal. Crown % is 14.6% and pavillion 43.1%. Unfortunately i also do not have pictures. Again, I really appreciate everyones assistance and have learned so much from this forum/site.

Hi agc,

That''s odd, then it must be one of the older new certs. or was that newer old cert.

AGS has been through a number of revisions before they got to the report they have now. In any case if any photographs or .srn file or .gem file was available that would help if they can''t take pix.

Small "v"''s in a hearts pattern is nothing to be alarmed about. In fact there are many instances where the presence of that in a hearts pattern produces a very pleasing result in the face up view (evidence of long lower girdle facets, =>80%) which can contribute to more pin flash fire/scintillation when coupled with the right crown/pavilion combos. A 34.9/40.9 combo is on the outskirts but with those lower girdles shold be a pretty bright diamond with nice fire. It''s a proportion combo right at Henry Morse''s original "American Ideal" which was invented and developed before Tolkowsky!

It should be fine unless you are seeking the precision/perfection of superior optical symmetry.

Good luck and sounds like you''re on the right course.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/24/2008 3:31:40 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 4/24/2008 1:26:49 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/24/2008 1:06:15 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 4/24/2008 11:48:55 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/24/2008 4:17:11 AM
Author: DiaGem
What made AGS decide to stop listing a detail from their overly detailed reports?

Just a question out of curiosity...

Being very blunt here....
Too prevent questions like this one and give the illusion that all AGS0 cuts are equal.
It also makes it easier on not so well trained sales staff that they dont have too try and explain something they dont understand.

I disagree with you Storm, you are apparently seeing communists behind every bush and conspiracies every where.

It was thought that listing values (X.XX for brightness, X.YZ for dispersion, etc) would cause consumers to be concerned about imperceptible differences. They were right, as this thread shows. Yes, I know that many of us here do not consider them equal, but then we are a bit more concerned about the imperceptible things than the average consumer. For the average consumer this is just too much information and will lead to consumers chasing after the 0 cut grade with all 0''s in the component parts making the average AGS 0 hard to sell. That would be a travesty of common sense, but it is that fear voiced loudly by those in the trade that lead AGS to cease listing those number.

While I agree that it would be difficult for many sales staff to explain it, it would also be impossible for most humans to discern it with the eye and it needlessly causes stress in the consumer that we are trying to serve. It is not about the illusion Storm, it is about the reality that most people can not possibly observe the 0.11 deduction that is being questioned here and it is absurd on its face to cause unwarranted concern when people are being sold AGS 5''s and 6''s every day in the Mall stores and even in many independent stores. The purpose of the AGS paper is to engender confidence that value is being received, not to scare people about things they can not see.

I have been told but have not seen one yet, that the current DQDs still itemize the values for diamonds below the ideal grade. This is so consumers can see what aspect, if any, prevented it from reaching the top grade in performance.

Wink

rofl Wink you crack me up.
You said you disagree then agreed with every point I made.

LOL... the same thought went through my head as I read Wink''s response. Strm... I just think Wink likes disagreeing with you even if he does agree.

I agree with some of what he said, but I dissagree that it was some vast retail wing conspiracy dedicated to hiding "The Truth" from the consumer.

My reasons are greatly different than his. I applaud the decision, he decries it. I fail to see how that is agreeing that there is a great gem lab conspiracy in conjunction with the vast retail conspiracy in any way trying to hide the bacon from the consumer.

Wink

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 4/24/2008 2:13:24 PM
Author: strmrdr
People are paying for the measureable difference when they buy the AGS0, Wink has stated that he has seen some AGS1 and 2s that were a match for any AGS0 so if someone is paying for measureable differences they should be told what the are.

Take another look at Todd's post above:

However if a diamond has an Overall Cut Grade lower than AGS Ideal 0, such as AGS Excellent 1, then the individual characteristics are stated within the body of the document to provide immediate insight to the buyer as to what factor(s) contributed to the overall lowering of the cut grade."

If a diamond scores lower than AGS0, they are told what the measureable difference is.

As far the diamond the original poster outlined, the miniscule contrast deduction didn't affect the overall grade; it still earned the AGS0 grade for cut.

As such, there's no economic difference between the listed stone and other stones earning the AGS0 cut grade under the present criteria.

 

[Rhino]

Hi alj,

Just thinking out loud here...

Date: 4/24/2008 2:24:34 PM
Author: Allison D.
I''m not wholeheartedly convinced all consumers even *want* that degree of data. While some of the more techie folks here might, the overwhelming majority of consumers (I''d hazard to guess at least 95%) have no interest in it.

Rabid enthusiasts on Pricescope are surely fascinated by diamonds and want to learn/know every little thing there is to know about them, sure, but that''s not reflecting of the other 95+% of the diamond-buying population.

I''m not a fan of data for the sake of data; if one doesn''t know how to appropriately interpret it or doesn''t understand its relevance to the overall picture, it''s just a bunch of white noise. Garbage in/garbage out.

I don''t understand how you can say this Alj. Because data provides valuable information to the end buyer. How would a client know they are receiving the precision of a finely crafted Hearts & Arrows without the empiracle evidence/data demonstrating it? Without certain data how can the average consumer on this forum begin to help folks with "input"? The prosumers'' first question to anyone asking the most commonly asked question on the forum "How''s this diamond?" is ... what are the proportions? Can you show me images? If data/technology is going to help people I am convinced people want it as long as the results it communicates is meaningful to the end consumer.

As mentioned, we saw a classic case of that here with the B/scope. People are hardwired to think good/better/best, and didn''t understand how much emphasis the results should be given in the overall stone evaluation. Instead, it was ''I don''t want anything less then triple VH.

Another example: the HCA. People who don''t learn how to interpret the results continue to misuse the results. We''ve been posters come who say ''I want a diamond that scores an AGS0 and scores ex-ex-ex-ex on the HCA.'' They don''t actually have any idea what those results mean, but it''s labelled ex, so it MUST be the most desireable/best, right?

How many times have we seen posters who think a 0.8 is ''better'' than a 1.0 HCA score? Right. Data for the sake of data doesn''t accomplish anything and, in fact, often has the opposite effect of spooking someone away from what is often a fabulous choice......especially if there''s some other misguided soul telling him (erroneously) that the information suggests a defect.

Like other things, the most responsible approach is to consider whether the data will do more good than harm for the overwhelming majority. In this instance, I agree with the choice.

I''d be in favor of allowing a way to request that information for those who are interested/passionate enough to want it.

I agree but would temper it with this statement. If you''re going to provide data or any kind of technical information also be responsible to understand & communicate what is and what isn''t meaningful results for that tool/technology/data so the end consumer can correlate that with the actual beauty/appearance and what they can expect in a practical observation.

I say this because there is alot of data and technological results that are very meaningful to both gemologist and consumer. Ie. if a diamond scores a certain result on Dave''s Imagem he know what to expect in a visual exam and how that measures up to the rarest he''s seen. Todd and I know that when a diamond scores "x" on the BrillianceScope there are certain expectations we have and can be confident of when we go to look at that diamond in certain lighting. When communicated properly technologies can communicate to the end consumer the superiority or commonality of a particular diamond. *Balanced and correct info is the key*. For example (and correct me if I''m wrong agc) but agc knowing that his diamond got a .11 in contrast isn''t discouraging him away from this diamond since he has learned from more than one expert that it doesn''t in any way impact the beauty or apperaance of the diamond.

All the best,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 4/24/2008 3:45:52 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 4/24/2008 3:31:40 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 4/24/2008 1:26:49 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/24/2008 1:06:15 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 4/24/2008 11:48:55 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/24/2008 4:17:11 AM
Author: DiaGem
What made AGS decide to stop listing a detail from their overly detailed reports?

Just a question out of curiosity...

Being very blunt here....
Too prevent questions like this one and give the illusion that all AGS0 cuts are equal.
It also makes it easier on not so well trained sales staff that they dont have too try and explain something they dont understand.

I disagree with you Storm, you are apparently seeing communists behind every bush and conspiracies every where.

It was thought that listing values (X.XX for brightness, X.YZ for dispersion, etc) would cause consumers to be concerned about imperceptible differences. They were right, as this thread shows. Yes, I know that many of us here do not consider them equal, but then we are a bit more concerned about the imperceptible things than the average consumer. For the average consumer this is just too much information and will lead to consumers chasing after the 0 cut grade with all 0''s in the component parts making the average AGS 0 hard to sell. That would be a travesty of common sense, but it is that fear voiced loudly by those in the trade that lead AGS to cease listing those number.

While I agree that it would be difficult for many sales staff to explain it, it would also be impossible for most humans to discern it with the eye and it needlessly causes stress in the consumer that we are trying to serve. It is not about the illusion Storm, it is about the reality that most people can not possibly observe the 0.11 deduction that is being questioned here and it is absurd on its face to cause unwarranted concern when people are being sold AGS 5''s and 6''s every day in the Mall stores and even in many independent stores. The purpose of the AGS paper is to engender confidence that value is being received, not to scare people about things they can not see.

I have been told but have not seen one yet, that the current DQDs still itemize the values for diamonds below the ideal grade. This is so consumers can see what aspect, if any, prevented it from reaching the top grade in performance.

Wink

rofl Wink you crack me up.
You said you disagree then agreed with every point I made.

LOL... the same thought went through my head as I read Wink''s response. Strm... I just think Wink likes disagreeing with you even if he does agree.

I agree with some of what he said, but I dissagree that it was some vast retail wing conspiracy dedicated to hiding ''The Truth'' from the consumer.

My reasons are greatly different than his. I applaud the decision, he decries it. I fail to see how that is agreeing that there is a great gem lab conspiracy in conjunction with the vast retail conspiracy in any way trying to hide the bacon from the consumer.

Wink

Sorry Wink but I did not read the "vast retail wing conspiracy" into strmrdr''s words. Is that what you meant strm?

I understand why you applaud the decision to remove it Wink. I also understand why consumers why strm may prefer it. Frankly I don''t care whether they leave it in or take it out.

Peace,

 

[diagem]

Date: 4/24/2008 4:31:41 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi alj,

Just thinking out loud here...

Date: 4/24/2008 2:24:34 PM
Author: Allison D.
I''m not wholeheartedly convinced all consumers even *want* that degree of data. While some of the more techie folks here might, the overwhelming majority of consumers (I''d hazard to guess at least 95%) have no interest in it.

Rabid enthusiasts on Pricescope are surely fascinated by diamonds and want to learn/know every little thing there is to know about them, sure, but that''s not reflecting of the other 95+% of the diamond-buying population.

I''m not a fan of data for the sake of data; if one doesn''t know how to appropriately interpret it or doesn''t understand its relevance to the overall picture, it''s just a bunch of white noise. Garbage in/garbage out.

I don''t understand how you can say this Alj. Because data provides valuable information to the end buyer. How would a client know they are receiving the precision of a finely crafted Hearts & Arrows without the empiracle evidence/data demonstrating it? Without certain data how can the average consumer on this forum begin to help folks with ''input''? The prosumers'' first question to anyone asking the most commonly asked question on the forum ''How''s this diamond?'' is ... what are the proportions? Can you show me images? If data/technology is going to help people I am convinced people want it as long as the results it communicates is meaningful to the end consumer.

I dont think the consumer wants or expects this level of data or information! This Data is expected by a consumer because we are educating them to want or expect this type of data!

But!!! we who educate the consumer need to know ourselves and have the ability to explain these different nano-nuances!!!
Unfortunately..., I think most prosumers here on PS are BY FAR more knowledgeable in the technical aspect of the Diamond cut grading than the majority of sellers of jewelry out there in the open jewelry Ocean!!!

As mentioned, we saw a classic case of that here with the B/scope. People are hardwired to think good/better/best, and didn''t understand how much emphasis the results should be given in the overall stone evaluation. Instead, it was ''I don''t want anything less then triple VH.

Another example: the HCA. People who don''t learn how to interpret the results continue to misuse the results. We''ve been posters come who say ''I want a diamond that scores an AGS0 and scores ex-ex-ex-ex on the HCA.'' They don''t actually have any idea what those results mean, but it''s labelled ex, so it MUST be the most desireable/best, right?

How many times have we seen posters who think a 0.8 is ''better'' than a 1.0 HCA score? Right. Data for the sake of data doesn''t accomplish anything and, in fact, often has the opposite effect of spooking someone away from what is often a fabulous choice......especially if there''s some other misguided soul telling him (erroneously) that the information suggests a defect.

Like other things, the most responsible approach is to consider whether the data will do more good than harm for the overwhelming majority. In this instance, I agree with the choice.

I''d be in favor of allowing a way to request that information for those who are interested/passionate enough to want it.

I agree but would temper it with this statement. If you''re going to provide data or any kind of technical information also be responsible to understand & communicate what is and what isn''t meaningful results for that tool/technology/data so the end consumer can correlate that with the actual beauty/appearance and what they can expect in a practical observation.

I say this because there is alot of data and technological results that are very meaningful to both gemologist and consumer. Ie. if a diamond scores a certain result on Dave''s Imagem he know what to expect in a visual exam and how that measures up to the rarest he''s seen. Todd and I know that when a diamond scores ''x'' on the BrillianceScope there are certain expectations we have and can be confident of when we go to look at that diamond in certain lighting. When communicated properly technologies can communicate to the end consumer the superiority or commonality of a particular diamond. *Balanced and correct info is the key*. For example (and correct me if I''m wrong agc) but agc knowing that his diamond got a .11 in contrast isn''t discouraging him away from this diamond since he has learned from more than one expert that it doesn''t in any way impact the beauty or apperaance of the diamond.

All the best,