The terms ''Ideal'' and ''AGS Ideal''

[JohnQuixote]

Seeing 2 threads on this subject, I thought it might be good to have a reset for further discussion on this simple, but meaningful word.

The term ‘Ideal’

AGS introduced the term on grading reports in 1996. Over the last decade ‘Ideal’ has fallen into the trade lexicon as simply meaning a round with AGS Ideal proportions. AGS has not contested outside use, which has worked to their advantage since widespread use has elevated its prominence.

However, the term has been diluted at times. EGL introduced a ‘Tolkowsky Ideal’ grade with wider proportions than the AGS Ideal. Sellers may use definitions that may not be as strict as standards introduced by AGS. In severe examples diamonds have even been advertised as ‘Ideal’ based on simple depth/table measurements.

In common parlance, we believe that round diamonds advertised with the word ‘Ideal’ (when not accompanied by an AGS document) should be expected to conform to either the old AGS Ideal proportions range (1996-2005), or new AGS proprietary grading.

Consumers should be made aware that polish and symmetry grades are part of the overall evaluation at AGS where the term originated: A diamond with traditional ‘Ideal’ proportions still may not receive ‘Ideal’ in overall cut evaluation if submitted to the AGS if its polish/sym are sym.

The term ‘AGS Ideal’

Using the term ‘AGS Ideal’ or ‘AGS 0’ is a matter of more strictness: The American Gem Society licenses its grading system to AGSL. The only people authorized to use the AGS grading system are:

• Members of the American Gem Society
• AGSL

This from the AGS: "A seller can represent a diamond as being an AGS Ideal 0 if they back it up with an AGSL report. They can also represent a diamond as being an AGS Ideal 0 if they are a member of the American Gem Society - with or without an AGSL report. If not a member of the American Gem Society, one can’t legally or ethically represent a diamond as an 'AGS Ideal' without an AGSL report."

Therefore, any diamond you see using the term AGS 0 or Ideal as part of its advertising should be accompanied by an AGS grading report, or have been assessed by an AGS member using the PGS (proprietary grading software).

Fancy Shapes

I don’t blame Paul for being protective of fancy shapes: The term ‘Ideal’ for princess, and now square emerald cuts (oval coming soon) can only be awarded by the AGSL via direct light performance metric. Unlike rounds (where ‘Ideal’ can mean traditional ideal proportions) use of the word ideal is inappropriate unless that fancy shaped diamond is accompanied by an AGSL report – or the assessor is a member of the AGS.

* By the way, in March 07 AGS will stop issuing DQDs for rounds based on proportions. At that time ‘Ideal’ will be completely performance-based for all shapes.

More information: http://www.agslab.com/faqs.html


Having said all of this: Over the years our website has grown. Though we constantly try to stay current and to avoid misunderstandings it may be possible to find something that may seem contrary or unclear. If so, please contact us so that we may better clarify or correct it. I think most Pricescope professionals will agree that consistently high standards and transparency are vital to acquiring reputability in this trade - particularly on the internet, where information is king.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/13/2006 3:29:37 PM
Author:JohnQuixote

Having said all of this: Over the years our website has grown. Though we constantly try to stay current and to avoid misunderstandings it may be possible to find something that may seem contrary or unclear. If so, please contact us so that we may better clarify or correct it. I think most Pricescope professionals will agree that consistently high standards and transparency are vital to acquiring reputability in this trade - particularly on the internet, where information is king.

Kudos, John,

You have really opened up the exchange of ideas, and at the same time, it is very clear that it not the intent to attack any vendor whatsoever. By clarifying certain criteria, and asking to be informed about certain inconsistencies in your own communication, the final benefit is definitely for the consumer.

May I repeat that we too would like to be informed on any confusing or unclear communication from our side? As cutters and/or vendors, we are working for the consumer, and it is the consumer who can make sure that we get better at what we do.

Live long,

 

[pricescope]

I understand about AGS Ideal but what about Lazare Kaplan Ideal (since 1919?) or about FIC, BIC, TIC?

I don''t think AGS have any exclusive rights to the term "Ideal". Other companies and organizations can use it too as long as the criteria are clearly disclosed.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 9/13/2006 4:07:13 PM
Author: Pricescope

I understand about AGS Ideal but what about Lazare Kaplan Ideal (since 1919?) or about FIC, BIC, TIC?

I don''t think AGS have any exclusive rights to the term ''Ideal''. Other companies and organizations can use it too as long as the criteria are clearly disclosed.

I was first told about "ideal cut diamonds" back in 1991. I agree that the term is highly diluted and it is fortunate that when I go around requesting "ideal cuts" I know exactly what I''m looking for in numbers as well lol

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/13/2006 3:29:37 PM
Author:JohnQuixote

The term ‘AGS Ideal’

Using the term ‘AGS Ideal’ or ‘AGS 0’ is a matter of more strictness: The American Gem Society licenses its grading system to AGSL. The only people authorized to use the AGS grading system are:

• Members of the American Gem Society
• AGSL

This from the AGS: 'A seller can represent a diamond as being an AGS Ideal 0 if they back it up with an AGSL report. They can also represent a diamond as being an AGS Ideal 0 if they are a member of the American Gem Society - with or without an AGSL report. If not a member of the American Gem Society, one can’t legally or ethically represent a diamond as an 'AGS Ideal' without an AGSL report.'

Therefore, any diamond you see using the term AGS 0 or Ideal as part of its advertising should be accompanied by an AGS grading report, or have been assessed by an AGS member using the PGS (proprietary grading software).

A helpful thread, but the above sounding legalistic.

You could also be asked to share, where you state:

"In common parlance, we believe that round diamonds advertised with the word ‘Ideal’ (when not accompanied by an AGS document) should be expected to conform to either the old AGS Ideal proportions range (1996-2005), or new AGS proprietary grading"

...the extent you require the data in the virtual db to conform to AGS standards, old, presumably, (or new?...that would be interesting...have you updated your db for sorting) for you to categorize it as ideal for WF.

Thanks for considering this...

(and edited to add....) John, remember your kudos for my post concerning the Price Stats db. I'm aware that, behind the scenes, you should be able to see substantively more data than we can concerning these, which I should think you could apply to the process of categorization.

Regards,

 

[pricescope]

one more thing... in a few years understanding of the "ideal" cut can change including those that are considered AGS Ideals or Non-Ideals today...

Today's cut grading is subjective as well as color and clarity. Some organizations prefer to stick with different labs, while Tiffany thinks their in-house grading is the most reliable.

During our small surveys many people including experts (graders, appraisers, cutters, or vendors) have proffered different stones including AGS 3 over AGS 0 and vice versa, which simply demonstrates that either both can be classified as "ideal" or none of them is less "ideal" than another...

 

[Regular Guy]

John, just in case you were tearing your hair out, looking for that link...

 

[aljdewey]

For the benefit of this thread, repeating some of what I just posted in the other.

When most consumers are looking for an 'ideal' cut stone, their understanding or definition of 'ideal' means fine-make; top-make....and typically means cut proportions. In that instance, 'ideal' is meant in the generic sense.....like asking for a band-aid (little b). If I'm asked for a band-aid, I understand that someone needs an adhesive strip.....not that it must be a Band-Aid (capital B) brand adhesive strip.

Back in the days of typewriters, someone asking for 'white out' wanted correction fluid...not necessarily Liquid-paper White-Out brand correction fluid.

Most vendor who use the terms "ideal, very good, premium, good" etc. are trying to convey where the diamond falls on the "fair, average, good, better, best" premise. Since they know most consumers are hearing the generic word ideal, they want to identify their top-make stones as Ideal. No problem with that premise.

One of the problems is different interpretations. To the average joe, cut means proportions. To the average vendor, cut means proportions plus polish plus symmetry plus possible treatments plus light performance, blah blah blah.

We saw this very thing happen recently. Devientdrow (sp?) thought that her stone was AGS Ideal because the vendor said it was 'ideal'....and he appeared to mean having ideal cut proportions. A bit of disappointment came from this initially.

So, how can vendors be clearer without misrepresenting? Make sure you distinguish generic 'ideal' from lab defintions of "ideal" or "excellent", and perhaps adjust nomenclature a bit. Explain that fine make stones can vary a bit on the minor stuff depending on which lab grades them....but the essence of them is comparable. Not identical, necessarily, but comparable.

There's an easy, every-day example most folks will understand---generic drugs. You can buy Tyleonol, or you can buy XYZ pharmacy-brand acetaminophen. As long as the important factor is the same (in that case, the active ingredient), they are considered comparable. The inactive ingredients may vary a bit from one to the other, but the ESSENCE of the important element is the same.

Similarly, you could adjust some nomenclature to identify things as cut-proportion comparable.

Suggest some of the following:

'ideal' - a fine make stone with exceptional cut proportions.

'AGS0 Cut Proportions' - stone has cut proprotions that fall within AGS0 parameters....regardless of polish/symmetry.

"GIA-ex Cut Proportions" - stone has cut proprotions that fall within GIA parameters....regardless of polish/symmetry.

Designation of "AGS0 Cut GRADE" should only be used to represent a stone that meets the criteria John mentioned above i.e. has AGS0 DQD OR graded by an AGS member using the software. Designation of "GIA EX Cut GRADE" should only be used to represent a stone that has a GIA EX Grading report.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/13/2006 4:07:13 PM
Author: Pricescope

I understand about AGS Ideal but what about Lazare Kaplan Ideal (since 1919?) or about FIC, BIC, TIC?

I don't think AGS have any exclusive rights to the term 'Ideal'. Other companies and organizations can use it too as long as the criteria are clearly disclosed.

This is a great line of demarcation for why the word Ideal has been – and should be – more far-reaching than the term ‘AGS Ideal.’

Date: 9/13/2006 4:12:46 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 9/13/2006 3:29:37 PM
Author:JohnQuixote

The term ‘AGS Ideal’

Using the term ‘AGS Ideal’ or ‘AGS 0’ is a matter of more strictness: The American Gem Society licenses its grading system to AGSL. The only people authorized to use the AGS grading system are:

• Members of the American Gem Society
• AGSL

This from the AGS: 'A seller can represent a diamond as being an AGS Ideal 0 if they back it up with an AGSL report. They can also represent a diamond as being an AGS Ideal 0 if they are a member of the American Gem Society - with or without an AGSL report. If not a member of the American Gem Society, one can’t legally or ethically represent a diamond as an 'AGS Ideal' without an AGSL report.'

Therefore, any diamond you see using the term AGS 0 or Ideal as part of its advertising should be accompanied by an AGS grading report, or have been assessed by an AGS member using the PGS (proprietary grading software).

A helpful thread, but the above sounding legalistic.

I'm sure it sounds legalistic for good reason; it's a clarification directly from AGSL. They have a strong interest in keeping the ability to make an ‘AGS 0’ declaration in the hands of their own laboratory and membership since they would like to stay in business

(we'd like them to as well).

Date: 9/13/2006 4:12:46 PM
Author: Regular Guy

You could also be asked to share, where you state:

'In common parlance, we believe that round diamonds advertised with the word ‘Ideal’ (when not accompanied by an AGS document) should be expected to conform to either the old AGS Ideal proportions range (1996-2005), or new AGS proprietary grading'

...the extent you require the data in the virtual db to conform to AGS standards, old, presumably, (or new?...that would be interesting...have you updated your db for sorting) for you to categorize it as ideal for WF.

Thanks for considering this...

As for how we categorize Ideal on our site (thanks for asking, Ira) it’s per the above. All 'A Cut Above' diamonds are accompanied by an AGS DQD with an AGS Ideal grade in cut. There are a few with pre-LP documents, but ACA became all-light-performance-graded as soon as that metric was available. In-house Expert Selection rounds advertised with the word ‘Ideal’ conform to traditional AGS Ideal proportions and we educate on the differences in VG-EX-Ideal polish & sym.

As you may suspect, keeping up with changes and updating is a constant process. For some time our advanced search option for the virtual list took a balance of factors & assigned a cut category prediction but we disabled that feature. The AGS shift to light performance and GIA’s introduction of proportion-based grading is redefining EX and Ideal and the terms are not consistent across all shapes.

There is much to consider. On the first day here on PS a newbie can hear about...

AGS 0
AGS Triple 0
The NEW AGS Triple 0
Ideal
Tolkowsky Ideal
LK Ideal
Fiery Ideal
Brilliant Ideal
Total Ideal
EGL Tolkowsky Ideal
IGI Ideal
Superideal
Hearts & Arrows
…and now GIA Triple X

(I'm sure I missed some)

Educating our constituency on the broad range of what ‘ideal’ is = more complex than educating about what ‘AGS Ideal’ is, since the letters AGS typically imply a document from that lab.

That is a point I’m trying to make - and the reason for the title of this thread.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

both AGS and GIA have addded Firey and Brilliant Ideal/Excellents to their range of recomended cuts

 

[Rhino]

Interesting thread and I'm seeking some further clarification myself which I'll share once I get it.

Good post Alj. {edited to add: While I think your illustration is good, the confusion lies in the fact when the term is used the person reading applies their own learned definition to it. Amongst folks in the trade who participate and read here that term is generally associated with AGS's most current definition and in many cases the person using the term is not familiar with that (or even the older term for that matter). I guess when a person posts a stone as being "ideal" we shoudl ask what definition do they mean exactly. I see John has posted a plethora of companies/systems incorporating the word which can further confuse things.

Alj ... from a consumer's perspective how would you feel about the words "estimated AGS cut grade" or "estimated GIA cut grade" if indeed the stone was not accompanied by one lab report or the other with a disclaimer explaining how the estimated grade was arrived at? Do you think that would be clear enough for the layman to grasp if spelled out easilly? Interested in your input.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/13/2006 3:45:34 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Kudos, John,

You have really opened up the exchange of ideas, and at the same time, it is very clear that it not the intent to attack any vendor whatsoever. By clarifying certain criteria, and asking to be informed about certain inconsistencies in your own communication, the final benefit is definitely for the consumer.

May I repeat that we too would like to be informed on any confusing or unclear communication from our side? As cutters and/or vendors, we are working for the consumer, and it is the consumer who can make sure that we get better at what we do.

Live long,

Thank you Paul. That is the intent. As I often say, this forum is a two-way street when it comes to education. The discussions in the other threads were thought-provoking and I thought it would be helpful to have one thread where the perspectives could be shared.

By the way, I understand cool and influential diamontaires are granted the title of Baron in Belgium these days. If they do this for you, will you host a Pricescope party at your castle?

''clink''

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/13/2006 5:41:14 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
both AGS and GIA have addded Firey and Brilliant Ideal/Excellents to their range of recomended cuts

Seperate nomenclature? Links?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/13/2006 4:48:26 PM
Author: Regular Guy

John, just in case you were tearing your hair out, looking for that link...

Tearing what out?

Youch. I'll take a look-see later. Thanks for the link.

Date: 9/13/2006 5:47:13 PM
Author: Rhino

I guess when a person posts a stone as being 'ideal' we shoudl ask what definition do they mean exactly. I see John has posted a plethora of companies/systems incorporating the word which can further confuse things.

Rhino, I think you meant the list itself was confusing due to the number of ways the word is used (?) - If you meant my post was confusing let me know and I'll revisit it.

BTW, when you hear the word plethora do you think of 'The Three Amigos?' I sure do. Pardon please - my 80s is showing... It was a plethora of premiums, El Guapo.

 

[oldminer]

My firm has used "Ideal" for the 1A and 1B cuts we defined in round shapes as far back as 1986 and for all the fancy shapes a few years later, about 1996. Admittedly, this was parametric based, but we seem to have hit the sweet spot for many situations. Surely, direct measure is superior to pure parametric grading, but AGSL was NOT the first to offer such terminolgy. Neither was AGA the first, but we expanded it to fancy shapes without widening the parameters on rounds or fancy stones to ridiculous levels that larger competitors have done.

AGSL has done a superb job of marketing, but in spite of all the advertising, they were not the first lab to do cut grading. The AGS proprietary system that was an AGS member benefit was more or less appropriated from the paid AGS membership base and made into a far more commercial venture for the AGSL. This took a fine program belonging only to AGS members into the open diamond trade. Whether this benefited the AGS membership or not is a question that has nver been adequately addressed in a public forum. I sure it has been discussed in private, and the way things turned out was great for AGSL. How great this turned out for the original members of AGS is something that many might feel differently about.

The Tiffany issue is something totally different. I am given to understand that they grade many diamonds in-house because they want to represent those diamonds as accurately as possible. They often have strong differences of opinion from what the GIA has graded some diamonds and Tiffany seeks to protect its brand and its customers by giving them grades they feel are correct. Since color and clarity grading remain subjective, one can only commend a retailer whose policy is to protect their clients even if it means calling a diamond an F color when GIA may have called it an E. I know this seems impractical, but only a very unusual firm can decide to do what it believes to be right in spite of not maximizing profits. I know everyone thinks Tiffany and profits go hand-in-hand, but there is a whole lot more to the story than money when you have a reputation to protect...... You EARN a reputation. You cannot buy one. It takes years to make one and only moments to lose it.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Dave, I'm glad you chimed in. I had a whole paragraph in a prior post about GIA introducing their cut class system in the 80s as well as you and Joe Tenhagen and the system you introduced - but my computer ate that post and I didn't include it in the second iteration.

My first thought in this thread; 'AGS introduced the term on grading reports,' was not meant to imply that AGS introduced the term itself - I think we all realize that. However, as you appropriately point out, their marketing efforts have resulted in association with the word Ideal.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/13/2006 5:47:13 PM
Author: Rhino
Interesting thread and I''m seeking some further clarification myself which I''ll share once I get it.

Good post Alj. {edited to add: While I think your illustration is good, the confusion lies in the fact when the term is used the person reading applies their own learned definition to it. Amongst folks in the trade who participate and read here that term is generally associated with AGS''s most current definition and in many cases the person using the term is not familiar with that (or even the older term for that matter). I guess when a person posts a stone as being ''ideal'' we shoudl ask what definition do they mean exactly.

Yep - hence my comment above "One of the problems is different interpretations. To the average joe, cut means proportions. To the average vendor, cut means proportions plus polish plus symmetry plus possible treatments plus light performance, blah blah blah."

Date: 9/13/2006 5:47:13 PM
Author: Rhino


Alj ... from a consumer''s perspective how would you feel about the words ''estimated AGS cut grade'' or ''estimated GIA cut grade'' if indeed the stone was not accompanied by one lab report or the other with a disclaimer explaining how the estimated grade was arrived at? Do you think that would be clear enough for the layman to grasp if spelled out easilly? Interested in your input.

Honestly, my most preferred choice would be to see only one expression of the cut grade. If it''s a GIA stone, then show that it''s a GIA-EX grade. If it''s an AGS stone, then show it''s an AGS0 Ideal grade.

Both labs are well-respected enough that they shouldn''t need to be "handicapped" by adding another lab''s estimated testimonial, if you know what I mean.

I think it''s better as a vendor to limit estimations to verbal convos....it leads to less confusion. Keep it simple - it is what it is.....a stunning diamond.

I''ve seen your layout, so I know that your cut grades do show an asterisk, and I know that you can click through to the disclaimer that it''s just an estimation. Still, believe me when I say, most folks don''t pay attention to the fine print in that way (unless they are beyond anal like some of us around here!). While moving it to the front as you suggest (estimately cut grade) is better than it exists today, I''m not a fan of the practice as a whole. If it''s a GIA-EX, call it that.....with nothing more. No apologies.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/13/2006 6:39:35 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 9/13/2006 5:47:13 PM
Author: Rhino

I guess when a person posts a stone as being ''ideal'' we shoudl ask what definition do they mean exactly. I see John has posted a plethora of companies/systems incorporating the word which can further confuse things.

Rhino, I think you meant the list itself was confusing due to the number of ways the word is used (?) - If you meant my post was confusing let me know and I''ll revisit it.

BTW, when you hear the word plethora do you think of ''The Three Amigos?'' I sure do. Pardon please - my 80s is showing... It was a plethora of premiums, El Guapo.

Number of ways the word is used. Your post was fine.

Three Amigos!!!

Great movie! Oh wait ... we''re not that old now are we?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/13/2006 7:37:32 PM
Author: oldminer

The Tiffany issue is something totally different. I am given to understand that they grade many diamonds in-house because they want to represent those diamonds as accurately as possible. They often have strong differences of opinion from what the GIA has graded some diamonds and Tiffany seeks to protect its brand and its customers by giving them grades they feel are correct. Since color and clarity grading remain subjective, one can only commend a retailer whose policy is to protect their clients even if it means calling a diamond an F color when GIA may have called it an E. I know this seems impractical, but only a very unusual firm can decide to do what it believes to be right in spite of not maximizing profits. I know everyone thinks Tiffany and profits go hand-in-hand, but there is a whole lot more to the story than money when you have a reputation to protect...... You EARN a reputation. You cannot buy one. It takes years to make one and only moments to lose it.

The hopeful corner of my soul really hopes that''s always the baseline intent, Dave.......and perhaps it is.

However, the cynic in me realizes a few other possibilities. It''s hard for me to imagine that Tiffany (or any large-scale retailer, for that matter) would prioritize ''protecting its customer'' over satisfying its shareholders. I think that there are times when satisfying the shareholders produces the by-product appearance of also protecting the customers, so it''s a win-win. I''m not as confident that protecting the customer would be the loudest mantra if it ran directly contrary to satifying shareholders or protecting the brand.

Fortunately, for Tiffany, they can likely afford to be a bit blase about potentially giving up the monetary difference of a color grade considering how stiff the premium is for their name to begin with. When you''re getting nearly 40% more than other retailers for essentially the same quality of product, it''s easy not to sweat a percent or two here or there.

I can easily imagine, though, that this magnitude of "correct grading" may also work in Tiffany''s favor in some instances too.....deciding that something is an E when perhaps an independent lab would assign one grade lower. I don''t seriously think that Tiffany''s "more correct to them" grades necessarily always favor the customers. It''s likely a wash.

As with many other things, I frankly put a great deal more value in the educated opinion of someone who has no financial interest in the results of the evaluation. As such, I''d personally prefer a grading report from an independent lab than one generated by a retailer. It''s a little too "rat guarding the cheese" for me......and that''s not to say that they have ill intent or malign them, but they really cannot claim a position of objectivity.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Alj,

Thanks for the response. Thoughts below.

Date: 9/13/2006 8:46:17 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/13/2006 5:47:13 PM
Author: Rhino
Interesting thread and I'm seeking some further clarification myself which I'll share once I get it.

Good post Alj. {edited to add: While I think your illustration is good, the confusion lies in the fact when the term is used the person reading applies their own learned definition to it. Amongst folks in the trade who participate and read here that term is generally associated with AGS's most current definition and in many cases the person using the term is not familiar with that (or even the older term for that matter). I guess when a person posts a stone as being 'ideal' we shoudl ask what definition do they mean exactly.

Yep - hence my comment above 'One of the problems is different interpretations. To the average joe, cut means proportions. To the average vendor, cut means proportions plus polish plus symmetry plus possible treatments plus light performance, blah blah blah.'

I know. What would be nice is if we all attempted to get on the same "blah blah blah" page.

Whenever I see a basic set of proportion numbers (ie. avg cr angles, pav angles, table) a gazillion different appearances run through my head of what that stone could potentially look like.

I guess, more than anything those offering counsel on this forum to consumers, if they are going to use the word "ideal" should make clear the definition they are providing. AGS, BlueNile, Lazarre, H&A ... etc. My personal conviction is if we are going to use the word we should stick to the organization with whom it is most closely associated with ... ie. at the very least AGS although I prefer stones that fall in the zenith of both AGS and GIA top grades if we're going to get anal.

Date: 9/13/2006 5:47:13 PM
Author: Rhino


Alj ... from a consumer's perspective how would you feel about the words 'estimated AGS cut grade' or 'estimated GIA cut grade' if indeed the stone was not accompanied by one lab report or the other with a disclaimer explaining how the estimated grade was arrived at? Do you think that would be clear enough for the layman to grasp if spelled out easilly? Interested in your input.

Honestly, my most preferred choice would be to see only one expression of the cut grade. If it's a GIA stone, then show that it's a GIA-EX grade. If it's an AGS stone, then show it's an AGS0 Ideal grade.

Both labs are well-respected enough that they shouldn't need to be 'handicapped' by adding another lab's estimated testimonial, if you know what I mean.

I think it's better as a vendor to limit estimations to verbal convos....it leads to less confusion. Keep it simple - it is what it is.....a stunning diamond.

I've seen your layout, so I know that your cut grades do show an asterisk, and I know that you can click through to the disclaimer that it's just an estimation. Still, believe me when I say, most folks don't pay attention to the fine print in that way (unless they are beyond anal like some of us around here!). While moving it to the front as you suggest (estimately cut grade) is better than it exists today, I'm not a fan of the practice as a whole. If it's a GIA-EX, call it that.....with nothing more. No apologies.

I understand your sentiments here and believe me it would be much easier for me to do this and less time consuming. I suppose I am my own worst enemy when it comes to this though because I am personally a nut for details plus many of the consumers we serve want to know how the stone would fare in both systems as they are both very popular. When we have the same type of request over and over I find it easier to publish this data up front personally. As an educator and vendor I do this to ultimately help and as Ira expressed in the other thread he is a consumer who sees this as a value added service. When I put the shoe on the other foot, as a consumer I fall into the same perspective Ira does (no disrespect meant to your perspective) which is why I am seeking to elimiinate any ambiguity in my presentation of the data. I believe if I do put the word "estimated XXX cut grade" that would eliminate any ambiguity as "estimated" implies that its not "actual" and that is the goal I am seeking to accomplish. I emailed my contacts at AGS to get their input as well because I don't want to break any of their rules or legalities in presenting the information either. I appreciate your thoughts on this though Alj. Thank you kindly for the input.

Regards,

 

[strmrdr]

With the AGS PGS a vendor and or appraiser can apply the AGS cut grade I see no reason not too do so.
AGS says its kewl.

That is a separate issue than calling any old diamond Ideal with no backup other than I say so.

 

[Rhino]

Good post Dave. I''ve heard inklings about the old AGS days but never got beyond a 5 minute conversation of it. Perhaps over a cup of java one day unless you care to type.

Bah ... let''s not hijack this thread.

Paul has done enough hijacking for the both of us this week.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/13/2006 5:37:27 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

As you may suspect, keeping up with changes and updating is a constant process. For some time our advanced search option for the virtual list took a balance of factors & assigned a cut category prediction but we disabled that feature. The AGS shift to light performance and GIA’s introduction of proportion-based grading is redefining EX and Ideal and the terms are not consistent across all shapes.

--------------
That is a point I’m trying to make - and the reason for the title of this thread.

Actually, John...and as far as I both can see, and am concerned, for the good, I don''t see that that feature''s disabled at all.

Perhaps you took out the word ideal in the second presentation of a series of 3 screens, after you first ask customers to select "ideal," if that''s what they prefer, then you present your list, and finally, you bring up the option after you select it to look at. In screens one & three, ideal is there to see.

I say, for the good...because who needs just a bunch of rocks with color and clarity differentiating them! Using whatever parameters you choose to, to differentiate them, does provide a benefit to discerning customers. Now, however, with your post, perhaps you can make more transparent the criteria that goes into the cyphering. Maybe even you''ll take the opportunity to review, tighten, etc.

Also, not sure if you''d previously put forward so clearly definitions about expert selection, either. (Or maybe you have, I''m not that careful a reader). It''s good to protect one''s brand, but sometimes you just can''t be so clever, for risking overprotecting.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Well, this thread is already proving beneficial. The list of diamonds appearing in a virtual search used to show predicted level of cut quality for each - which we disabled. I didn''t know a selection option still existed on the first screen & I suspect the 3rd screen is still being calc''d under the old system - I''ll need to check with the programmers. Thanks for pointing this out Ira.

Good insight about overprotecting. On the other side is being too liberal. The balance is important.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 9/13/2006 9:36:08 PM
Author: strmrdr
With the AGS PGS a vendor and or appraiser can apply the AGS cut grade I see no reason not too do so.
AGS says its kewl.

That is a separate issue than calling any old diamond Ideal with no backup other than I say so.

Agreed in part, disagreed in part Storm.

Not just old vendor can do this . The vendor or appraiser needs to be an AGS member to use the software.

As a titleholder and AGS affiliate, and previous full member (doing what is necessary to re-establish as ICGA) they have licensed me to use it and supplied me with the version that does report the cut grade.

I do understand there is another version of the software, that is available, but it is designed for cutters and reports different its results far differently, but it is not to be used to report the AGS Cut Grade.

Additionally, an AGS titleholder Certified Gemologist ( CG ), Certified Gemologist Appraiser ( CGA ), or an Indepenpendent Certified Gemologist Appraiser ( ICGA ) needs to personally examine the stone for polish and symmetry. An non AGS titleholder is really NOT qualifed to do this. Examining the polish and symmetry is CRITICAL to the resultant AGS cut grade. A stone could have qualifying light return and it''s proportions of the 0 cut grade, but the slightest symmetry or polishing departure instantly lowers the issued cut grade.

One slight polishing mark, and the stone gets dinged in its cut grade. It can be very difficult to ascertain this for even experienced gemologists.

As an example I recently reviewed a diamond with an AGS report that was a DQR. The cut and polish grade was stated as "Excellent" and not Ideal since the report was not a DQD. There is comparison commnents that Ideal and Excellent are equal. I looked at the polish andy symmetry of the stone carefully, and didn''t notice any polishing or symmetry issues. The client was considering having the stone resubmitted to AGS for an upgraded report and laser inscription, as in my input into the PGS software, I entered that the polish and symmetry was ideal.

So, I contacted AGS to arrange this and was told that the stone would cut grade an AGS 1 cut grade, due to a very sight polishing mark. So I reviewed the stone for polish again to see if I missed something in the first look, and yes I did. But the polish mark was so slight that it could very easily be overlooked by a gemologist, so what would be the chances that a non-gemologist would be able to find it.

Then I experimented with the cut grade result changing the polish grade from 1 to 4. Regardless, of the rest of the analysis, you change the polish or symmetry grade, the PGS instantly produces the cut grade and "hits" it the same level as as the polish or symmetry selection.

From a practical viewpoint, you could have an incredibly beautiful stone, that gets a lower grade due to a very minor polish mark.

In the PGS report, the results of the different categories need to be seen so someone relying on it, knows if it gets a lower grade than 0 - why it does. The PGS report does show this.

I am certain as time goes on, this will be more fairly defined.

As to the criteria that my version reports, I do find it is very exacting, in reporting contrast, girdle, brightness, dispersion, durability, weight ratio, and more. However, there can be slight variances in the results and it will still render the AGS 0 cut grade when it is appropriate. I''ve also tested it for repeatabiliy, but scanning the same stone several times, and it is remarkably repeatable.

I will comment later once I find out more about the other version of the PGS software.

Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Roc I agree with you on the pol and Sym issues, but

Date: 9/14/2006 2:10:56 AM
Author: RockDoc

Date: 9/13/2006 9:36:08 PM
Author: strmrdr
With the AGS PGS a vendor and or appraiser can apply the AGS cut grade I see no reason not too do so.
AGS says its kewl.

That is a separate issue than calling any old diamond Ideal with no backup other than I say so.

Agreed in part, disagreed in part Storm.

Not just old vendor can do this . The vendor or appraiser needs to be an AGS member to use the software.

As a titleholder and AGS affiliate, and previous full member (doing what is necessary to re-establish as ICGA) they have licensed me to use it and supplied me with the version that does report the cut grade.
Rockdoc

Rockdoc there was an offer to buy the AGS Performance Grading software at a discounted price which could be further discounted if bundled with GIA''s new scanner (an offer being made at the AGS stand) at the GIA Symposium.

I think there may have been a change of policy.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/13/2006 5:52:01 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Thank you Paul. That is the intent. As I often say, this forum is a two-way street when it comes to education. The discussions in the other threads were thought-provoking and I thought it would be helpful to have one thread where the perspectives could be shared.

By the way, I understand cool and influential diamontaires are granted the title of Baron in Belgium these days. If they do this for you, will you host a Pricescope party at your castle?

''clink''

LOL

The problem is that I am not allowed to invite consumers to a Pricescope-party, according to forum rules. But I could ask you all to assist in the design of my coat of arms and my motto.

Maybe Brian can apply some pressure to speed up the process of granting me that title.

And yes, I am sorry for highjacking a thread again. Please do not let the fun of this post carry us away from the theme of the thread.

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/14/2006 2:43:52 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Roc I agree with you on the pol and Sym issues, but

Date: 9/14/2006 2:10:56 AM
Author: RockDoc

Date: 9/13/2006 9:36:08 PM
Author: strmrdr
With the AGS PGS a vendor and or appraiser can apply the AGS cut grade I see no reason not too do so.
AGS says its kewl.

That is a separate issue than calling any old diamond Ideal with no backup other than I say so.

Agreed in part, disagreed in part Storm.

Not just old vendor can do this . The vendor or appraiser needs to be an AGS member to use the software.

As a titleholder and AGS affiliate, and previous full member (doing what is necessary to re-establish as ICGA) they have licensed me to use it and supplied me with the version that does report the cut grade.
Rockdoc

Rockdoc there was an offer to buy the AGS Performance Grading software at a discounted price which could be further discounted if bundled with GIA''s new scanner (an offer being made at the AGS stand) at the GIA Symposium.

I think there may have been a change of policy.

Maybe, there is a slight distinction between using the software, to predict a grade (often before sending it in) and actually using the software, and communicating a grade to the consumer, without ever sending the stone in for a report.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think Rockdoc is right Paul - the only way to know for sure that a stone gets the AGS grade is to send it in. I think the practice of claiming a stone is worthy of a particular labs grade is a bad practice.

But then i also do not care for the grading of many labs. I have suppliers whose word i would take over independant 3rd partiy labs. This can be because I ask and frame my questions well, and it is because there are many people in our industry who have no need to ''gild the lilly''.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/14/2006 6:43:25 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I think Rockdoc is right Paul - the only way to know for sure that a stone gets the AGS grade is to send it in. I think the practice of claiming a stone is worthy of a particular labs grade is a bad practice.

But then i also do not care for the grading of many labs. I have suppliers whose word i would take over independant 3rd partiy labs. This can be because I ask and frame my questions well, and it is because there are many people in our industry who have no need to ''gild the lilly''.

Sometimes, even the most honest cutter can be told wrong by the lab.

I have a 2Ct-princess, which is Ideal on all counts, except for VG on Polish. The problem is a naat-line on one P1-pavillion-facet. It is technically very difficult, even impossible to get rid of it. We sent it in, hoping it would get EX on Polish.

After it came back, we tried to improve the facet even more, and sent it back to AGS, hoping for EX on Polish again. Still VG.

Then, it came back, and when examining the stone in the microscope, and with a specific way of lighting and very high magnification, we suddenly see that the naat-line is not on the surface of the facet, but just inside the stone. Hence, not a Polish-mistake, but an inclusion.

We sent the stone back to AGS, indicating our observations, and asking them to re-check the stone. Of course, I understand that it is difficult for them to duplicate the exact magnification and lighting-circumstances, and the result is that they stuck to the VG-Polish-grade. According to me, it is AGS-Ideal, however, the report is AGS-VG, and we must accept that.

Unfortunately, sometimes, we have to bow to what we consider errors of the labs. Luckily, the positives of working with a lab still outweigh the occasional negative.

Live long,