RANT: BGD Cushions & AGS Reports

[BAS2348]

Hi again everyone,

So I have a bit of a rant to get off my chest. I purchased a BGD cushion and am currently having it set with David Klass, when I sent my very first email (back with the idea was to get a 3 stone) I included at the end the abnormality that comes along with BGD cushions in terms of how they're measured, I had hoped that Amy or David had read that little tidbit to avoid any misunderstandings with our stone. Last week we agreed on the final CADs, and I approved them for casting, today I got an email from him:

"I am having a slight issue with your center stone. Your ring was cast and when we fit the stone it would not fit. The .698ct weight is correct, and the stone is laser inscribed with the same number on the AGS certification. The mm measurements on the certificate and diamond paper say (6.03mm x 5.19mm x 3.49mm). This stone measures 5.19mm x 5.17mm x 3.46mm. When your stone arrived I checked the diamond weight but I have never had an AGS certificate differ from an actual diamond measurements. You need to contact Brian Gavin to figure out the mistake to get the correct certification. I need to recast the ring to fit correctly. Thanks David"

I feel absolutely terrible and embarrassed that I put them through all of this simply because of the technicality of BGD measurements. I went back to the CADs and noticed that all of them read 6.03 mm for LENGTH, something I SHOULD have corrected but I did not because I assumed David measured the stone when he received it. Can anyone please explain to me WHY AGS does not include an excerpt about the diagonal measurements on BGD's reports? Considering how different it is, I would think it would be a critical piece of information to include on their reports. I feel like this isn't the first time this has happened, and I am mortified that David has to start all over again on our setting.

 

[Gypsy]

It's not BGD's fault. It's how AGS measures them.

I understand how upsetting this is, I would be very disappointed and angry too.

That SAID, the stone you bought is square. You saw the images of it before your bought. Didn't it seem a little odd that the measurements listed on the lab report had different length and width measurements?

 

[marymm]

And apparently you provided the details of the measurement issue at the end of your first email to David... the fact that he and his assistant ignored the info is not your fault, and the re-cast shouldn't be at your cost IMO.

 

[Karl_K]

Measure twice cast once.
It is best practices not to cast anything until they the diamond in hand and measures it for themselves.
I too would have assumed they would do so.

 

[flyingpig]

This is the reason why one-stop shopping is recommended whenever possible. I have read so many unfortunate stories here at PS.
When you involve more than one vendor, you become the project coordinator. And when things go wrong, you are stuck between vendors, who often refuse any responsibility.

I hope you find a good solution. good luck

 

[flyingpig]

there needs to be an excerpt somewhere on the AGS reports that clarifies that piece of information both for the consumer and any other jeweler who encounters their stones.

100% agree. BGD should request AGS to add such excerpt.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I believe that is BG's choice to have them measured that way. I know of no other cushions measured that way by AGS, do y'all? I know AVC's are not measured that way. They are measured the traditional way. I have always thought those measurements were deceptive and I think they should be measured the regular way, and then if they want to provide corner-to-corner measurements in addition, fine.

I'd say this is a combination of errors. When the CADs were being done, I think you should have mentioned again about the measurements because an initial email isn't usually the sales agreement. Agree also with Karl regarding not casting until they had the stone in hand.

 

[WinkHPD]

Speaking as a jeweler I can tell you that it is incredibly important to know the diagonal measurement on squares and cushions, as that is the measurement that the prongs must fit.

Although it is not the way most non rounds are measured, I have always thought it was very brilliant for Brian Gavin to request that the diagonal measurement be included on the diamond grading report.

It may take awhile for the bench jewelers to understand what is being transmitted to them, but I think it will catch on quickly. For Sure, the jeweler now remaking the ring will not forget it soon.

Of course, it will be helpful if clients continue to advise the bench jewelers up front too.

Wink

 

[diamondseeker2006]

There needs to be consistency, though, regardless of which way the measurements are done. It is very difficult to compare the face up size of these cushions to others, so often we don't even look at them to recommend.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Speaking as a jeweler I can tell you that it is incredibly important to know the diagonal measurement on squares and cushions, as that is the measurement that the prongs must fit.

Although it is not the way most non rounds are measured, I have always thought it was very brilliant for Brian Gavin to request that the diagonal measurement be included on the diamond grading report.

It may take awhile for the bench jewelers to understand what is being transmitted to them, but I think it will catch on quickly. For Sure, the jeweler now remaking the ring will not forget it soon.

Of course, it will be helpful if clients continue to advise the bench jewelers up front too.

Wink

I disagree Wink. I think it is confusing at best, and false and misleading information at worst. If AGS think this is a valid and correct practice they should apply it across the board.

 

[flyingpig]

Unfortunately, both consumer AND jeweller were mis-informed, a mistake was made, again by both consumer AND jeweller, and the project is delayed.

It is not a rocket science.
All BGD has to do is to ask AGS to add a side note. If someone wants to modified its personalized report and include different measurements, that's fine. It just needs to be clear.
Then, all parties are happy and well-informed.

What's next? Diagonal measurements on Princess cut grading reports? and depth% based on the diagonal measurements?

 

[Serg]

Unfortunately, both consumer AND jeweller were mis-informed, a mistake was made, again by both consumer AND jeweller, and the project is delayed.

It is not a rocket science.
All BGD has to do is to ask AGS to add a side note. If someone wants to modified its personalized report and include different measurements, that's fine. It just needs to be clear.
Then, all parties are happy and well-informed.

What's next? Diagonal measurements on Princess cut grading reports? and depth% based on the diagonal measurements?

There is standard simple solution for any fancy cut.
1) Length and Width dimensions defined by outline symmetry axis's
2) Min and Max outline measurements.
depth% and any other Height% based on Width( or min diameter)


http://octonus.com/oct/products/helium/polish/reports/Illustrated_report_for_cushion.pdf

 

[BAS2348]

I just realized my post in response to another PSer disappeared where I clarified the situation. Why did that happen?

 

[distracts]

It does seem confusing, like LxWxDepth should be done as normal and maybe diagonal measurement on a separate line or something.

 

[oldminer]

Years ago, I discovered La Cushette cushion cut diamonds were getting diagonal measurements on their grading reports. I can't remember what lab did this for them, but I was annoyed, and upset about the practice. While we do generally want the maximum and the minimum face up dimensions on a diamond, but we assume this means length and width, not a diagonal. No one ever does this with a princess cut or a square emerald cut. Leaving out the standard length and width and replacing one measurement with the diagonal is arbitrary and stupid. However, it makes the diamond appear less deep because they use that measure in the depth % too. Using that long diagonal makes the diamond report read with a less deep percentage. Is that the reason why this is being done?

Diamonds that benefit statistically from a diagonal measurement should always have the regular measurements clearly visible and the diagonal measure all by itself and clearly understood. What a waste of time. The ring maker might not understand this special circumstance, the seller should have revealed the process, the lab should have made it clear as day. There is plenty of blame here, but it should NOT be on the consumer or the ring maker. The fault belongs to the lab making the accommodation and the seller.

 

[flyingpig]

I just realized my post in response to another PSer disappeared where I clarified the situation. Why did that happen?

I guess the anothes members post and your post contained matters that are not allowed under the terms and conditions of this forum.

For an example, the PSer you mentioned only had two posts and showed rather outstanding knowledge in the industry and AGS grade reports. I assume this PSer was a previously banned trade member with a new fake login. Thus, all his posts and any post containung his post got deleted.

 

[Ella]

I just realized my post in response to another PSer disappeared where I clarified the situation. Why did that happen?

I guess the anothes members post and your post contained matters that are not allowed under the terms and conditions of this forum.

For an example, the PSer you mentioned only had two posts and showed rather outstanding knowledge in the industry and AGS grade reports. I assume this PSer was a previously banned trade member with a new fake login. Thus, all his posts and any post containung his post got deleted.

This is correct. It is a member who refused to follow the policies for many years and was finally asked to leave permanently. Occasionally they come back to stir up trouble as they tried to do in this thread.

 

[kmarla]

It does seem confusing, like LxWxDepth should be done as normal and maybe diagonal measurement on a separate line or something.

I agree with this. There should be one standard of measurement regardless of brand. If I was shopping for a cushion and chose a BGD, I would be completely unaware that this is a diagonal measurement. I would expect a larger diamond than what I would be receiving. It also makes it difficult to comparison shop.

 

[mrs-b]

And apparently you provided the details of the measurement issue at the end of your first email to David... the fact that he and his assistant ignored the info is not your fault, and the re-cast shouldn't be at your cost IMO.

I agree with other comments here that the practice is misleading at best.

To add - DK never charges for remakes in situations like this, so you'll be pleased to hear that, Marymm. And just to clarify, his 'assistant' is actually his partner, so you might like to correct your terminology.

 

[cindyfreck]

This is a topic I know well as I discussed it with the then Executive Director of AGSL Peter Yantzer in 2013.

Here is the relevant part of the discussion:

Peter Yantzer:

In 2001 we established a policy regarding the measuring of patented shapes. In those days we could not create a template to measure different facet arrangements – Sarin had to do it. A client submitted a patented stone to us for grading and they had worked with Sarin to have a template made so we could measure it accurately.

The template had been created so it would measure the length as the longest or average of the longest measurements BY the smallest or largest or average of the two flat-to-flat dimensions BY the depth. We knew this wasn’t the traditional way to measure. We figured that if someone spends the considerable amount of time, money and resources to actually patent a cut and then more money, time and resources to promote it they should be able to measure it any way they like.

Traditional measuring of squares and rectangles is Length x Width x Depth. In the case of squares it might look like 5.25 x 5.22 x 3.67 mm. Doing the math we can calculate what the length would be for a requested patented cut: 27.5625 + 27.2484 = 54.8109. The square root of 54.8109 = 7.40. Cut corner squares are trickier to figure. So, the dimensions, if the holder of a patent requests, would be 7.40 x 5.24 ( if they want average of the flats ) x 3.67 mm.
You can see that this expression yields significantly smaller "depth" percentages.


My suggestions were as follows in late 2013:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary here is my humble suggestion for all cushions:

(Mandatory)
Traditional method L X W X D in mm
Depth % L/D*100 or W/D*100 (whichever is shorter as in your current convention)
Spread in mm squared (actual surface area for 2d trace not simple square or circle calculation)

(Optional)
Corner to Corner in mm
Depth % from Corner to Corner instead (with label/key)
Spread normalized with +/- X carats or Spread factor (Tolk round = 1 less SA = 0.95)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since this is a customized report for Brian Gavin the lab did not make any changes to the way they make their measurements to date although they appreciated my suggestion. Brian wants his depth percentage to be in the low 60s not low 70s like his H&A rounds so the corner to corner measurement still remain on the reports for his signature H&A cushion diamonds.

 

[gm89uk]

I think adding the diagonal adds some interesting info to the diamond.

Without the diagonal you cannot calculate the surface area accurately:


Using some geometry you can calculate the SA:


Which is impossible otherwise with just side measurements.

Also by looking at the ratio of 'r' with 'w' you can assess how ROUNDED a cushion it is. Some cushions will have tiny rounded corners and have a princess appearance, so that 'r' almost equals 0. If r is large compared to w, it means the cushion has very rounded corners.

A simple ratio 10(2r / w) will give you a number from 0 to 10. 10 is a circle (as if 2r = w, then that is a circle), 0 is a princess cut (as would be the case if r = 0) and everything in between is a cushion of varying roundness. Some brian gavin cushions have a ratio of 4, which is more squarish, and some have a value of above 7, which look very roundish.

Practically it probably doesn't make much difference as you can see the diamond in person, but by withholding the diagonal measurement you lose some valuable information about the diamond that give indication to how squarish or roundish it is, and the ability to calculate it's surface area.

If anyone wants me to explain how the formula is derived I'm happy to explain.

 

[Serg]

I think adding the diagonal adds some interesting info to the diamond.

Without the diagonal you cannot calculate the surface area accurately:


Using some geometry you can calculate the SA:


Which is impossible otherwise with just side measurements.

Also by looking at the ratio of 'r' with 'w' you can assess how ROUNDED a cushion it is. Some cushions will have tiny rounded corners and have a princess appearance, so that 'r' almost equals 0. If r is large compared to w, it means the cushion has very rounded corners.

A simple ratio 10(2r / w) will give you a number from 0 to 10. 10 is a circle (as if 2r = w, then that is a circle), 0 is a princess cut (as would be the case if r = 0) and everything in between is a cushion of varying roundness. Some brian gavin cushions have a ratio of 4, which is more squarish, and some have a value of above 7, which look very roundish.

Practically it probably doesn't make much difference as you can see the diamond in person, but by withholding the diagonal measurement you lose some valuable information about the diamond that give indication to how squarish or roundish it is, and the ability to calculate it's surface area.

If anyone wants me to explain how the formula is derived I'm happy to explain.

Most cushions have less surface area than such formula defines.
it is better to add direct information about either surface area or spread into grading report. There is not any technical limitation to do it right now.

 

[oldminer]

Providing all the details of cut and shape is important, especially when leaving certain ones out or when making the arbitrary decision to use potentially misleading ones in place of traditionally provided measures making no comment about doing so.

A measure of surface area is highly desirable considering that many people would love to be able to compare diamonds based on visible size of one another. Giving the measurements is great for those who have good math skills, but simply providing the resultant visible surface area seems even better.

I think any lab that provides non-traditional measurements should call to the attention of the public the measurement being provided and show the traditional depth % right next to the happily reduced depth measurement resulting from measurements which give this different outcome. I agree that patented cuts can be measured in any way the lab and patent holder agree to since no rule of law applies, but the consumer has a right to be able to appreciate what is going on to make the patented diamond seem better than a non-patented competing diamond when the measurements of the two stones are not measuring in identical point to point locations. It just appears, to me, unfair to the less knowledgeable, end user.

It is somewhat equivalent to selling round diamond solely by weight. A consumer can't compare properly 1ct rounds, one with a 6.25mm diameter to one with a 5.9mm diameter if the only measurement provided them is 1ct. What we have here is a far more subtle misleading situation, not one so simple as the 1ct round example. However, neither is fair.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Providing all the details of cut and shape is important, especially when leaving certain ones out or when making the arbitrary decision to use potentially misleading ones in place of traditionally provided measures making no comment about doing so.

A measure of surface area is highly desirable considering that many people would love to be able to compare diamonds based on visible size of one another. Giving the measurements is great for those who have good math skills, but simply providing the resultant visible surface area seems even better.

I think any lab that provides non-traditional measurements should call to the attention of the public the measurement being provided and show the traditional depth % right next to the happily reduced depth measurement resulting from measurements which give this different outcome. I agree that patented cuts can be measured in any way the lab and patent holder agree to since no rule of law applies, but the consumer has a right to be able to appreciate what is going on to make the patented diamond seem better than a non-patented competing diamond when the measurements of the two stones are not measuring in identical point to point locations. It just appears, to me, unfair to the less knowledgeable, end user.

It is somewhat equivalent to selling round diamond solely by weight. A consumer can't compare properly 1ct rounds, one with a 6.25mm diameter to one with a 5.9mm diameter if the only measurement provided them is 1ct. What we have here is a far more subtle misleading situation, not one so simple as the 1ct round example. However, neither is fair.

Agreed Dave. Enter any scan of any shape diamond into DiamCalc and you get a number that compares the surface area of a diamond to an idealised round cut of the same weight.

There are 2 numbers given. One is the spread difference in weight - in the example it is 0.03ct. The second is the difference in spread in %. The numnbers are based on the 6.47mm ideal-ised 1.00ct round - 90% are smaller than this ideal. Infact we probably should drop the ideal standard back to a more realistic number.
FYI less than 10% of rounds are 0.00Ct wt and 0.00% spread.
So in this case a $ / bling for an emerald cut that has a bigger surface area than 80% of rounds - is about 1.5 to 1 dollar for dollar even allowing that the stone has about 90% of the light return and fire of a round.

A more realistic number would be Tolkowsky with a 57% table 34.5/40.75 and medium girdle 1ct = 6.44mm (which is is -2% spread compared to 6.47mm)