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

[Small]

Date: 9/19/2006 1:16:12 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/19/2006 12:58:27 AM
Author: Small

Your welcome

That''s exactly what I read into being...a WF vs GOG (LOL that''s why I added my 2c about buying my ring from Wink and having no affiliation/love/hate to either vendor) and it''s like that in several threads...and I agree nobody was attacking. He asked for your opinion way back in the beginning, and I thought you gave a diplomatic answer to what he was asking...nothing more. Again...I normally don''t get involved in these types of threads becuase let''s face it I''m a novice compared to most however I thought your posts were dead on and I commend you for your honesty and very well written analysis of the topic at hand

Hey, novices are always welcome here! Pull up a chair and have some pie with us (or some non-pie)!

Lemon is the preferred flavor around these parts, but if you ask the waitress nicely, she really serves key lime too.

LOL...I''m really going to be the odd man out of the pie eating LOL...I only like chocolate pie

with lots and lots of whipped cream to go with it

I''ll go hide my novice head now

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/18/2006 9:21:08 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 9/17/2006 10:05:06 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 9/17/2006 10:01:17 PM
Author: mrssalvo
looks like GOG already made the changes and it''s pretty clear to me..

Thank you Rhino

Since this thread''s start was based upon my objections to the presentations of some other companies, and since the last pages seemed to turn into another round of Rhino-bashing, I would like to clarify my perception of the subject.

If any vendor starts presenting stones as ideal or, even worse, AGS-ideal, while these stones are clearly not up to par with even the minimum requirements, I reserve the right to openly question the validity of their presentation. Let me tell you that I am less touchy in the subject of rounds, where the term ''ideal'' might have an historic different and broader meaning, but definitely in the case of princess-cuts, with their greatly varying cut-qualities, I will be easily stepped on my toes.

Observing Jonathan''s openness in this thread, and amazed by the speed, with which he adjusted certain presentations on his website, I can only applaud this.

Even more, when he is estimating a grade, even in writing on his site, I trust his professionalism and his judgment to the extent, that his estimate will always be incredibly pretty well close to the official final grade. In any case, knowing him personally, I am sure that a possible error in his estimate would be indeed an error, and not an intentional mis-representation.

Whether it is wise to keep on having estimates on his website, which might cause extra heat, is a totally different question. In the end, that is only GOG''s internal decision.

I just wanted to make clear that when I was criticizing certain presentations, I was never directly attacking GOG, and furthermore, I am amazed by the quick changes made to his site.

Live long,

I really appreciated the spirit of Paul''s reply here, and being totally neutral, he not only fairly summed up the situation regarding the GOG cut grading, but he also perceived the "Rhino-bashing" in the last several pages. So let''s not make this out to be that I am the only one who noticed this. Because I''m not.

All I did was state that I felt that WF''s wordiing or format could also be unintentionally confusing or misleading to newbies, and MrsSalvo agreed with that. Neither of us indicated that we thought it was intentional. I thought this was relevant to the topic of the thread and the many discussions about newbies being confused on the vendor sites. I''m actaully puzzled as to why there would be such a huge reaction to some general statements like this. I can''t imagine that John Q would be at all upset about it. (Especially since I hugged him earlier in the day!

)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/19/2006 7:35:58 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006

I can''t imagine that John Q would be at all upset about it. (Especially since I hugged him earlier in the day!

)

If i promise to be good too, can I have a bed time hug please DiamondSeeker?
it is 10pm here downunder

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 9/18/2006 9:17:28 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Well why are they even called Ideal Cut if they are AGS1? That certainly is not a deliberate attempt to deceive, but I think it''s a heck of a lot more likely to make someone think they are getting an AGS ideal cut stone when the stone would not grade as AGS0.

Judging from the number of replies after this post this may well have been answered already, but I only have a few minutes before my first appointment, so I will take a stab at it...

AGS Ideal cut is a performance based system, not proportion based. For many years the only ideal standards were proportion based. The stones you are in question about are definitely within the parameters of the traditional proportion based ideal cuts. In fact, with the AGS system it is entirely possible that an AGS 2 cut would still be within the parameters of the traditional ideal cut, but the stone would not qualify for the AGS 0 cut grade.

I will state emphatically to you that many (if not most) AGS 1 cuts are visually indestinguishable from AGS 0 cuts. They are graded AGS 1''s due to minor polish or symmetry faults that are only visible with a loupe. Too harsh? Perhaps, but for those who want to buy paper this is a plus.

For those who want the most beautiful diamond at a small discount, the AGS 1 is an incredible opportunity to have the same beauty of the AGS 0 without the full cost.

As the title of this thread states, the discussion point of this thread is the difference between the two. Performance, versus proportions. It has for too long been possible to get a stone that was within the parameters of ideal that did not look right for some reason, often being steep and deep but within the edges of the parameters. The AGS system was designed to defeat that type of chicanery.

It has however, lead to this type of confusion, wherein the public has come to believe that AGS 1 cut grade is not an ideal in the old sense of the word, when in fact it usually is. I think it VERY important that the trade take great pains to state clearly if a stone is an AGS Ideal cut, and if it is an ideal under the old standards then it must be clear that it is not an AGS 0 cut.

To me, looking at the WhiteFlash site, it is clear that the stones listed in their Expert Selection are not AGS 0''s, but obviously to some, if not many, consumers it may not be. What may seem perfectly obvious to someone in the trade may be in fact confusing to a consumer. Interesting dilemna, the more open and educational some of us are, the more confusing it can get for the consumer, which is exactly the oposite of our intent.

Wink

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/19/2006 7:56:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 9/19/2006 7:35:58 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006

I can''t imagine that John Q would be at all upset about it. (Especially since I hugged him earlier in the day!

)

If i promise to be good too, can I have a bed time hug please DiamondSeeker?
it is 10pm here downunder

Garry, I''m going to get in trouble with my husband if I keep hugging other men on here! But I guess one can''t have too many friends with large quantities of diamonds and/or other gemstones! So, I''d gladly give you a hug in the company of all these friends if you promise to be good on the forum

...and I''ll remind you of this, too!

{{{{Garry}}}}

Now maybe we can get back to the topic!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/19/2006 9:07:47 AM
Author: Wink

Date: 9/18/2006 9:17:28 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Well why are they even called Ideal Cut if they are AGS1? That certainly is not a deliberate attempt to deceive, but I think it''s a heck of a lot more likely to make someone think they are getting an AGS ideal cut stone when the stone would not grade as AGS0.

Judging from the number of replies after this post this may well have been answered already, but I only have a few minutes before my first appointment, so I will take a stab at it...

AGS Ideal cut is a performance based system, not proportion based. For many years the only ideal standards were proportion based. The stones you are in question about are definitely within the parameters of the traditional proportion based ideal cuts. In fact, with the AGS system it is entirely possible that an AGS 2 cut would still be within the parameters of the traditional ideal cut, but the stone would not qualify for the AGS 0 cut grade.

I will state emphatically to you that many (if not most) AGS 1 cuts are visually indestinguishable from AGS 0 cuts. They are graded AGS 1''s due to minor polish or symmetry faults that are only visible with a loupe. Too harsh? Perhaps, but for those who want to buy paper this is a plus.

For those who want the most beautiful diamond at a small discount, the AGS 1 is an incredible opportunity to have the same beauty of the AGS 0 without the full cost.

As the title of this thread states, the discussion point of this thread is the difference between the two. Performance, versus proportions. It has for too long been possible to get a stone that was within the parameters of ideal that did not look right for some reason, often being steep and deep but within the edges of the parameters. The AGS system was designed to defeat that type of chicanery.

It has however, lead to this type of confusion, wherein the public has come to believe that AGS 1 cut grade is not an ideal in the old sense of the word, when in fact it usually is. I think it VERY important that the trade take great pains to state clearly if a stone is an AGS Ideal cut, and if it is an ideal under the old standards then it must be clear that it is not an AGS 0 cut.

To me, looking at the WhiteFlash site, it is clear that the stones listed in their Expert Selection are not AGS 0''s, but obviously to some, if not many, consumers it may not be. What may seem perfectly obvious to someone in the trade may be in fact confusing to a consumer. Interesting dilemna, the more open and educational some of us are, the more confusing it can get for the consumer, which is exactly the oposite of our intent.

Wink

Wink, thank you so much for this informative response! I really appreciate it. I think you should have a hug, too! {{{{Wink}}}}

I know in my field, we come across the same thing. We know our are of expertise so well, that sometimes when meeting with parents, we are unaware that they may be unclear on something we just take for granted. I salute all of you who are open to hearing suggestions and improving your services. I also appreciate it when suggestions and comments are positive and constructive just like your post here.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 9/19/2006 11:58:31 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Now maybe we can get back to the topic!

Please don''t.
Calling my dog "Best In Show" is one thing. Selling him as Westminster Winner is another. Period.