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

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/14/2006 7:01:14 AM
Author: 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,

You probably have access to the HRD manufacturers reflected light instrument that shows the surface finish at very high magnifiction Paul?

Of course other than HRD, I do not believe any labs have this instrument. they use reflected light in a microscope which is not even close to as effective as this instrumewnt when combined with the stone being locked in the polishing tang.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/13/2006 9:33:11 PM
Author: Rhino

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.

I think you''re missing my point. Your comments seem to be more directed to Pricescope activity. I''m thinking a bit more global, J.

I''m not talking about what people on PS know/should know/should counsel, etc. I''m talking about dialog between vendors and everyday, average consumers (which is what most are when they first come to PS anyway). I''m talking about knowing where the baseline is *before* someone becomes a forum reader, etc. Those folks cannot be expected to get on the same blah, blah, blah page because they don''t even know that page exists!

Most times, Johnny has heard from his Aunt Millie or some sales guy at the mall that he should be looking for an "ideal" diamond. So, when he comes to a vendor, or when he comes here, his understanding about ideal at that point in time really means "a well-cut stone". Because he''s not in trade, he doesn''t know that AGS0 Ideal means cut proportions plus light performance plus polish plus symmetry, blah blah blah.

That''s what I''m referring to......that it would help if vendors could put themselves in the newbie''s shoes at that point and understand what Johnny probably means by using the word ideal and then going on to explain the difference between ''ideal'' as a generic term (meaning a fine make stone) and then how different labs define ideal. That''s all.

Date: 9/13/2006 9:33:11 PM
Author: Rhino

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.

I do understand your reasoning behind it, but I disagree with it personally.

I can''t profess to know your customer base; I can only go by what you''ve said yourself on the forums many times. You''ve always mentioned that the lion''s share of your business comes from customers outside the realm of PS.

As such, it''s hard to imagine that all the John Doe''s off the street are really asking how the stones would fare in both systems consider that the average John Doe has never even heard of AGS.....heck, most of them are lucky to recognize the name GIA! With that being such a majority of your business as you''ve claimed before, it''s hard to imagine it''s worth all that work up front.

Even if we limit discussion to those more seasoned and knowledgable folks (including those who frequent pricescope), it''s an overstatement to call it "data". It''s your best professional guess, sure, but it''s still a guess.

"Estimated" would be an improvement over where you are now, but I honestly think it would be much better to amend it to AGS Cut PROPORTIONS......because they you''re speaking to something that doesn''t need PGS software, etc. to assert. It keeps your claim cleaner and less likely to be refuted.

For all the reasons RockDoc and Garry mentioned, I think it''s a bad idea to list it, but if you feel compelled to list something, I''d rather see it refer to proportions and not grade.

 

[RockDoc]

RE: AGS offering PGS to non AGS members

Garry you may be correct. I didn''t go to the Symposium.


I am not sure which version they sold there however. If Jon bought it there, maybe he''ll fill us in on it, as he says he has the PGS software.


It was my understanding that it was only going to be offered to AGS members.


I am of the opinion however, this software in the hands of the non professional could result and develop into a nightmare. In the wrong hands, it does have the potential to abuse and mislead.

However, in estimating and comparing the cut grade between AGS and GIA, it is very helpful to consumers where there is only a GIA grading report available and want to know what the AGS grading would be. The PGS software does rounds and princess cuts and soon emerald cuts and square emerald cuts/ Asschers etc.

AGS does have a very good ethics control over it''s members. It is one of the few associations that have tossed out members who have gotten "cute". In limiting the distribution of the software exclusively to it''s members, it can keep the level playing ground aspect under their guidelines. To non members have access to this, they do lose control, of just how well, honestly and ethcally it is used in protecting the consumer.

Rockdoc

 

[oldminer]

In the rush to get recently hatched ideas out into the marketplace we often see consequences that could have been prevented had sufficient time been given for a better understanding of the risks. Often thorough testing has not been done before the release of tools, so the first buyers are excited initially and later on kick the equipment or program to the curb. The trade has seen many partially ready ideas, programs and devices enter the marketplace as supposed cures for certain problems only to see these things were not proven or well planned solutions, but only prototype ideas looking for quick market acceptance. The market didn't accept them and the ideas, programs and products quietly disappeared.

The concept of "Ideal" is not going away quietly. It is here to stay and some excellent work has been done. We always must face mis-use of good tools by those who simply don't care. If the entire trade can't use a system, then it won't become an International standard. It is my hope that real standards will become accepted and not just made available to the self anointed. There are good folks inside an outside of AGS, just as with any other organization. Why else would AGS have had to throw anyone out if they were all perfect to begin with. NAJA has done the same with a few bad apples. Keeping your integrity and your eye on long term high goals is what counts, not what country club you are a member of or if you paid dues somewhere.

Any system worth consideration will be compatible or cross-referable to any other legitimate system. Without that, there cannot be anything but a hodgepodge of half baked quasi-standards.....The old smoke and mirrors gone modern.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Good counsel aljdewey

And I agree with you Rockdoc

 

[Rhino]

Hi Garry,

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.

I agree. That is why I state estimated cut grade in our disclaimer. It is my conviction that if a diamond is going to be called an AGS Ideal, if it is not accompanied by an AGS Lab Report nobody has any business stating it is an actual AGS Ideal Cut. IMHO, even if the grader is an AGS member my personal conviction would still be to use the word estimated cut grade, becuase who''s to say that that gemologist''s opinion will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, agree with AGS grade. The only things that can be stated for sure are the aspects of the cut grading that are not subjective which are basically provided in the PGS software however even in the PGS manual there are aspects that must be visually confirmed.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/14/2006 7:01:14 AM
Author: 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,

Good point Paul and demonstrates exactly what I''m saying. The best any of us can do short of sending it to AGS is estimate.

 

[RockDoc]

RE: AGS Reports on diamonds.

That would be a problem solved if all the sellers submitted their stones to AGS for DQD''s. But that simply isn''t the case. There are more GIA reports out there than ones from AGS, and many claiming the GIA Excellent Cut grade is "equal" to the AGS grading.

For consumers considering other diamonds with GIA, HRD, EGL, DQR''s or NO grading reports, the PGS analysis done by an independent, can at least be able to rely on a good estimate of the cut grade based on the light performance. When the additional grading costs and shipping costs are added, consumers can get a reasonbly good report that can be used to help make the purchasing decision, not done by the seller, an interested party, where abuse could occur.

While the sellers listed on PS are essentially very ethical, there are far more that potentially aren''t. I''ve received diamonds to be checked by several sources that claim that the diamonds are the "absolute cat''s meow" only to find they are not quite there. Granted these are nice stones, some even with AGS new Light performance reports that are 0 cut grades. But depart slightly from the "best". At least the consumer is able to know that such is factual, when it does occur, and make his/her decision accordingly.

Rockdoc

 

[Rhino]

Hi Alj,

Date: 9/14/2006 11:26:39 AM
Author: aljdewey

I think you''re missing my point. Your comments seem to be more directed to Pricescope activity. I''m thinking a bit more global, J.

I''m not talking about what people on PS know/should know/should counsel, etc. I''m talking about dialog between vendors and everyday, average consumers (which is what most are when they first come to PS anyway). I''m talking about knowing where the baseline is *before* someone becomes a forum reader, etc. Those folks cannot be expected to get on the same blah, blah, blah page because they don''t even know that page exists!

I understood the point. I understand exactly what you''re saying and agree. The key of course is clear communication and meeting/understanding consumers at the level of education they''ve received thus far. I think we''re on the same page there. My point regarding advice given on this forum is if consumers on this forum are going to advise other consumers into "ideal cut diamonds" that they themselves should be educated on what truly constitutes an ideal cut diamond or on the flip side a GIA ex cut diamond if those are the questions posed by the person asking. Ie. Many consumers come here asking about GIA graded diamonds and want to know if its ideal cut or not and conversely there will be consumers who come here with AGS graded diamonds who may want to know how the stone fares in the GIA system. I''m just saying that if anyone is going to offer counsel on these circumstances that they know what constitutes the grades. If I were a consumer offering advice on this forum and a person wanted to know if their GIA stone was ideal cut, I would not attempt to answer that question if I didn''t know what constituted an ideal cut. That''s all.

Most times, Johnny has heard from his Aunt Millie or some sales guy at the mall that he should be looking for an ''ideal'' diamond. So, when he comes to a vendor, or when he comes here, his understanding about ideal at that point in time really means ''a well-cut stone''. Because he''s not in trade, he doesn''t know that AGS0 Ideal means cut proportions plus light performance plus polish plus symmetry, blah blah blah.

Most times... probably but it really is a assumption. Johnny may have been to a good jewelry store that educated him on what an ideal cut is or read a website''s tutorial that did teach him about the subject. We really can''t presume to know the level of education Johnny has received on ideal cuts until we communicate with him.

That''s what I''m referring to......that it would help if vendors could put themselves in the newbie''s shoes at that point and understand what Johnny probably means by using the word ideal and then going on to explain the difference between ''ideal'' as a generic term (meaning a fine make stone) and then how different labs define ideal. That''s all.

I hear you Alj, but this is the point of Paul''s contention. There are websites and consumers using the term too loosely. As a manufacturer he thinks of the painstaking time, effort and capital it takes to produce an ideal cut then some website or whoever uses the term to apply it to something that doesn''t even come close to being ideal. It is frustrating and I understand where Paul is coming from on this issue. As a consumer it may be tough to understand that perspective and I understand why by what you''re saying.

Date: 9/13/2006 9:33:11 PM
Author: Rhino

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.

I do understand your reasoning behind it, but I disagree with it personally.

I can''t profess to know your customer base; I can only go by what you''ve said yourself on the forums many times. You''ve always mentioned that the lion''s share of your business comes from customers outside the realm of PS.

Where have I ever said this?

As such, it''s hard to imagine that all the John Doe''s off the street are really asking how the stones would fare in both systems consider that the average John Doe has never even heard of AGS.....heck, most of them are lucky to recognize the name GIA! With that being such a majority of your business as you''ve claimed before, it''s hard to imagine it''s worth all that work up front.

I don''t know where I''ve ever made such a statement but the folks who come to us from PS are looking for information. You''re correct in saying that most folks off the street don''t know though.

Even if we limit discussion to those more seasoned and knowledgable folks (including those who frequent pricescope), it''s an overstatement to call it ''data''. It''s your best professional guess, sure, but it''s still a guess.

''Estimated'' would be an improvement over where you are now, but I honestly think it would be much better to amend it to AGS Cut PROPORTIONS......because they you''re speaking to something that doesn''t need PGS software, etc. to assert. It keeps your claim cleaner and less likely to be refuted.

For all the reasons RockDoc and Garry mentioned, I think it''s a bad idea to list it, but if you feel compelled to list something, I''d rather see it refer to proportions and not grade.

If I were limited to only measuring/grading proportions you''d have a point. However I can accurately assess not only proportions but light performance in the new AGS System as well. The only subjective characteristics are generally the polish and symmetry grades (mentioned by RockDoc) which is why I would insist on still using the word estimate, no matter how confident I am in my own grading abilities and that of GIA''s lab on stones that are Ex/Ex.

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Wazzup RockHound,

Date: 9/14/2006 1:44:42 PM
Author: RockDoc
RE: AGS offering PGS to non AGS members

Garry you may be correct. I didn''t go to the Symposium.

I am not sure which version they sold there however. If Jon bought it there, maybe he''ll fill us in on it, as he says he has the PGS software.

It was my understanding that it was only going to be offered to AGS members.

I am of the opinion however, this software in the hands of the non professional could result and develop into a nightmare. In the wrong hands, it does have the potential to abuse and mislead.

Agreed. AGS has reserved the right to pull the license if they see it being abused Rock.

However, in estimating and comparing the cut grade between AGS and GIA, it is very helpful to consumers where there is only a GIA grading report available and want to know what the AGS grading would be. The PGS software does rounds and princess cuts and soon emerald cuts and square emerald cuts/ Asschers etc.

Amen.

If you''d like to see the data we can generate or a screen shot I''ll foward it to ya in email.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/14/2006 5:00:26 PM
Author: RockDoc
RE: AGS Reports on diamonds.

That would be a problem solved if all the sellers submitted their stones to AGS for DQD''s. But that simply isn''t the case. There are more GIA reports out there than ones from AGS, and many claiming the GIA Excellent Cut grade is ''equal'' to the AGS grading.

For consumers considering other diamonds with GIA, HRD, EGL, DQR''s or NO grading reports, the PGS analysis done by an independent, can at least be able to rely on a good estimate of the cut grade based on the light performance. When the additional grading costs and shipping costs are added, consumers can get a reasonbly good report that can be used to help make the purchasing decision, not done by the seller, an interested party, where abuse could occur.

While the sellers listed on PS are essentially very ethical, there are far more that potentially aren''t. I''ve received diamonds to be checked by several sources that claim that the diamonds are the ''absolute cat''s meow'' only to find they are not quite there. Granted these are nice stones, some even with AGS new Light performance reports that are 0 cut grades. But depart slightly from the ''best''. At least the consumer is able to know that such is factual, when it does occur, and make his/her decision accordingly.

Rockdoc

Amen to that which is why we always encourage a professional 2nd opinions and especially appraisers who perform light performance analysis like you, Dave, Rich, Neil, etc. As Dave and Paul have expressed in past threads there are stones getting ideal grade in princess cuts that they''re not too thrilled about too and I have to agree. Have you found AGS Ideal princess cuts with varying degrees of light performance too Rock that you weren''t totally thrilled with?

 

[RockDoc]

Rhino asked:

Have you found AGS Ideal princess cuts with varying degrees of light performance too Rock that you weren''t totally thrilled with?


Yes. I wouldn''t say "thrilled with". I think the better term is that my expectations on it once viewed, would be best described as " I was dissappointed". I truly expected better.

This doesn''t apply for just princess cuts either. I''ve seen some rounds too.

The AGS system of cut grading does have some variances. Any stone that gets a 0-1 or even lower can be an incredible stone, but some are better than others, just depends on how many times you "split the hair".



Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Rhino you are not practising what you preach:

Date: 9/14/2006 4:09:44 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Garry,

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.

I agree. That is why I state estimated cut grade in our disclaimer. It is my conviction that if a diamond is going to be called an AGS Ideal, if it is not accompanied by an AGS Lab Report nobody has any business stating it is an actual AGS Ideal Cut. IMHO, even if the grader is an AGS member my personal conviction would still be to use the word estimated cut grade, becuase who''s to say that that gemologist''s opinion will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, agree with AGS grade. The only things that can be stated for sure are the aspects of the cut grading that are not subjective which are basically provided in the PGS software however even in the PGS manual there are aspects that must be visually confirmed.

Peace,

Clearly this stone could not be AGS Ideal, as it only has GIA Very Good polish.
An asterix and a disclaimer is no substitute for appropriate wording in the first place.

I do not like it. This is exactly what I am writing about. And you agreement with me in your post seems superscilious.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

And Rhino, when you do click and read the small print, you get some sort of chart that suggests a different match of AGS to GIA grades to one that I have ever heard of?

For example who gave you the information that AGS 1 = GIA Very good?


http://www.goodoldgold.com/content.php?c=123

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/14/2006 9:32:23 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
And Rhino, when you do click and read the small print, you get some sort of chart that suggests a different match of AGS to GIA grades to one that I have ever heard of?

For example who gave you the information that AGS 1 = GIA Very good?


http://www.goodoldgold.com/content.php?c=123

The 1.18ct is an honest typo and taken care of.

The chart you are linking to here does not equate an AGS 1 to a GIA Very good. It is simply saying, as it does in the header of each column "AGS Cut Grades - best to worst" and "GIA Cut grades - best to worst". No comparisons are drawn between the grades in each system there.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I do not like one little bit of it Rhino - you are playing above your station.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Great, you have now given aGS a new set of cut grade terminology.
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/347/

Since when did AGS ever use a cut grade term "Excellent" ????

And correct me if I am wrong, but a gIA VG polish might equate to a AGS Very good (not Ideal, or Excellent polish) , which would result in what AGS grade?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/14/2006 9:41:27 PM
Author: Rhino

The chart you are linking to here does not equate an AGS 1 to a GIA Very good. It is simply saying, as it does in the header of each column 'AGS Cut Grades - best to worst' and 'GIA Cut grades - best to worst'. No comparisons are drawn between the grades in each system there.

What does it do then Rhino?
what would a reasonable person with little knowledge (or even a consumer with a modreate amount) think?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/14/2006 5:02:16 PM
Author: Rhino

My point regarding advice given on this forum is if consumers on this forum are going to advise other consumers into 'ideal cut diamonds' that they themselves should be educated on what truly constitutes an ideal cut diamond

What constitutes ideal according to whom? Rhino, consumer-to-consumer conversation doesn't carry the same burden for precision that vendor-to-consumer communication does. It's informal......it's asking for an opinion, but not necessarily an EXPERT opinion. If I ask you if my Toyota is a decent car, I don't expect you to answer in the same way I would if I ask a mechanic or a care salesman. I expect him to know more. If I ask you, I'm asking more of "what do you think, is it a good pick, is it the best choice"? but I don't expect mechanic-level expertise to back your amateur opinion.

If I ask a mechanic or a car dealership "is this a decent car", I'm not asking for their consumer opinion....I expect a more detailed, EXPERT information.

Similarly....with diamonds, I hold the vendor representing the product to a much different standard than I do another consumer. Therefore, if someone posts a stone and says "hey, is this ideal?", it's reasonable for another consumer to say "yep" and only be expected to mean "yes, it's an exceptional cut". Now, if someone asks "would this stone GET an AGS0 grade?", THEN it's reasonable to expect the consumer to know the criteria prior to answering.

These are two different questions. One is "hey, is this an ideal (meaning great/decent/not a piece of crap) stone?" (answer---yep); the other is "would this stone get this SPECIFIC grade from this specific lab?" (answer---you'd have to submit it to AGS to know that for sure. The cut proportions seem in line, but the AGS0 Cut grade assesses a few other things besides just cut proportions.)

Date: 9/14/2006 5:02:16 PM
Author: Rhino

I hear you Alj, but this is the point of Paul's contention. There are websites and consumers using the term too loosely. As a manufacturer he thinks of the painstaking time, effort and capital it takes to produce an ideal cut then some website or whoever uses the term to apply it to something that doesn't even come close to being ideal.

No, that wasn't the point of Paul's contention....at least not as I read it. You are taking his comments about the way VENDORS use terms loosely and broadening it to include consumers; that's not what he said. He didn't say "consumers" and he didn't say "whoever".

The point of Paul's contention is when VENDORS (nothing to do with consumers) use terms loosely (on their websites or otherwise) and misuses terminology, it misrepresents their products by suggesting they are comparable to goods that are actually superior. AND he's saying that this suggestive misuse of terminology devalues the goods of those vendors who DO strive to meet a higher standard. Here are excerpts from his comments:

"Although we know (XYZ vendor) as a reputable vendor, I have serious reservations about the mis-representation of this stone." (as in how the vendor is representing goods to a consumer)......."Am I the only one who considers such incorrect descriptions as unacceptable?"

"In rounds, an average vendor may claim that a nice 60/60 is ideal according to his book. .....In princesses, however, a vendor can take an AGS-4, and call it Ideal, ......One can even think that most diamond vendors have indeed some experience with different cut-qualities ........Not the case in princesses, where most vendors have never ever seen an AGS-0, .......I do know what cut-quality we are cutting, but I hate to say that many vendors out there (in the case of princess-cuts) have no idea what cut-quality they are selling."

"In a princess, claiming 'Ideal' without any basis is just plain guesswork from the vendor."

All of Paul's comment refer to VENDOR misrepresentation by using loosely-goosey nomenclature.

Date: 9/14/2006 5:02:16 PM
Author: Rhino

I can't profess to know your customer base; I can only go by what you've said yourself on the forums many times. You've always mentioned that the lion's share of your business comes from customers outside the realm of PS.

Where have I ever said this?

As such, it's hard to imagine that all the John Doe's off the street are really asking how the stones would fare in both systems consider that the average John Doe has never even heard of AGS.....heck, most of them are lucky to recognize the name GIA! With that being such a majority of your business as you've claimed before, it's hard to imagine it's worth all that work up front.

I don't know where I've ever made such a statement but the folks who come to us from PS are looking for information.

I guess I got that impression from a number of threads that got into the issue of who was getting territorial about how customers give testimonials and how those testimonials affect sales. In many of them, you've made comments along the lines of 'I'm not complaining about recommendations to other vendors.....I could care less. We do a great deal of business outside of here, so I'm not desperate for the referrals here.' (Not an exact quote; paraphrased because I'm just too lazy to go looking for the exact threads that contain the sentiments.)

Based on that and the expansion of your physical facility, I got the impression PS or forum customers aren't the majority of your business. But now your comments here are making me think that perhaps I was mistaken. Have things changed? Are you now saying clients from forums like PS (or other gem education venues) do constitute the majority of your client base?

I know that we PS customers ask for much more information, so it wouldn't surprise me to hear that most of them would ask such a question, .....but do they really constitute enough instances to begin estimating cut grades? I dont' mean harm in asking.....it's your family's business to run as you sall ee fit.

It just didn't make a lot of sense to me when thinking that PS customers are just a fraction of the total business.

Date: 9/14/2006 5:02:16 PM
Author: Rhino

Even if we limit discussion to those more seasoned and knowledgable folks (including those who frequent pricescope), it's an overstatement to call it 'data'. It's your best professional guess, sure, but it's still a guess.

'Estimated' would be an improvement over where you are now, but I honestly think it would be much better to amend it to AGS Cut PROPORTIONS......because they you're speaking to something that doesn't need PGS software, etc. to assert. It keeps your claim cleaner and less likely to be refuted.

For all the reasons RockDoc and Garry mentioned, I think it's a bad idea to list it, but if you feel compelled to list something, I'd rather see it refer to proportions and not grade.

If I were limited to only measuring/grading proportions you'd have a point. However I can accurately assess not only proportions but light performance in the new AGS System as well. The only subjective characteristics are generally the polish and symmetry grades (mentioned by RockDoc) which is why I would insist on still using the word estimate, no matter how confident I am in my own grading abilities and that of GIA's lab on stones that are Ex/Ex.

In my humble opinion, I still have a point.

By "estimating" that something would qualify as an AGS0, you are essentially doing the very same thing that Paul is taking exception to.......representing goods to be something comparable when it cannot be substantiated.

If a GIA stone were capable of getting an AGS0 grade, then it should be submitted to AGS and earn the grade. Unless and until it has that paper, there is no pedigree.....period, and any estimation of what it might do or not according to that lab is misleading and misrepresenting (just my humble opinion).

I am capable of earning a masters' degree.......but as of today, I haven't earned one. I don't have that degree. I cannot "estimate" that I'm the equivalent of a master's degree graduate holder. I either am or am not.....and presently, I'm not.

Related to that point.......I'm sure you have fine skills to assess a stone's properties, Jon. I'm not maligning your skills at all.....NO disrespect intended. But I understood that only an AGS member could make predictive grading comments based on results from the PGS software......but now I'm not sure about that.

Oh, and a related question for RockDoc, John, Rhino....anyone who might know: Is the PGS software now available more widely than to just AGS members?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/14/2006 9:41:27 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 9/14/2006 9:32:23 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
And Rhino, when you do click and read the small print, you get some sort of chart that suggests a different match of AGS to GIA grades to one that I have ever heard of?

For example who gave you the information that AGS 1 = GIA Very good?


http://www.goodoldgold.com/content.php?c=123

The 1.18ct is an honest typo and taken care of.

The chart you are linking to here does not equate an AGS 1 to a GIA Very good. It is simply saying, as it does in the header of each column ''AGS Cut Grades - best to worst'' and ''GIA Cut grades - best to worst''. No comparisons are drawn between the grades in each system there.

Well, I''m relieved to hear that.....but I have to confess that I got the same impression that Garry did when I looked at those tables side by side.

It''s easy to see how someone viewing it would mistakenly interpret that AGS0 correlates to GIA EX. Had I not personally read other techie threads which specified that some AGS4 stones make the GIA-ex grade, I wouldn''t have even thought twice. I would have thought you were representing them to correlate.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to separate the columns in placement on the page to avoid unintentional misrepresentation?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/14/2006 9:26:18 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Clearly this stone could not be AGS Ideal, as it only has GIA Very Good polish.

Garry, I agree with you on this one - VG polish would disqualify from AGS0 cut grade......

Date: 9/14/2006 9:50:53 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Since when did AGS ever use a cut grade term "Excellent" ????

And correct me if I am wrong...........

But you are wrong on this one. Sorry.

On the front of the DQD documents, it clearly shows a Cut Scale which reflects the following: AGS0 - Ideal, AGS1 - Excellent, AGS2 - Very Good, AGS3/4 - Good, AGS 5/7 - Fair, AGS8-10 - Poor.

So yes, they do use the cut grade term Excellent.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Rhino lets compare the overlap between the 11 AGS grades and GIA’s 5 grades. Clearly your chart is grossly misleading, as gIA’s top grade should equate to AGS’s 2 top grades.

Comparing that overlap is difficult because GIA did not follow the generally accepted chart format that AGS (and other researchers) use. A comparison of the 57% AGS and GIA table size charts showed that GIA Excellent proportions had only 26 good matches between AGS0 and AGS1, where as there were 31 bad matches (including 7 AGS 5 & 4 AGS 6’s). This is a poor match and confusing for both consumers and the industry. The situation is worse for table sizes below 52% where GIA has no Excellent proportion sets. For 51% table size AGS has 17 AGS0 and 22 AGS1 ‘candidate’ proportion sets. I have not considered AGS2 because it should, in a perfect world, be partly GIA Excellent and mostly GIA Very Good. But unfortunately – it is not a perfect world.

Adding the more strict AGS symmetry and polish grades only makes matters worse.


(edited to remove fragmented table of data)

 

[aljdewey]

Garry, the chart is misleading because of it's placement.

if it were placed this way.....it wouldn't give the wrong appearance.

AGS0 - ideal
ags1 - excellent
ags2 - very good
ags 3-5 good
ags 5-7 fair
ags 8-10 poor

**************

GIA Excellent
GIA Very Good
GIA Good
GIA Fair
GIA Poor

You're right that placement makes it misleading, but it's not a table that says AGS0 - Ideal EQUALS GIA EX. You're drawing an imaginary horizontal line between them when they are meant to be separate tables - independent of each other.

I agree that the poor placement on the page could like lead lesser-educated consumers to make those mistaken assumptions as well, so it would be a good idea to reposition them.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I just want to say that I think a big deal is being made over nothing. I recently bought a gorgeous diamond from Good Old Gold and it happens to have a GIA EX cert. As far as I could tell from things like the Helium Scan, it had the best cut of any stone currently available from the major vendors in that size range. Yes, I completely 100% understood that the estimated AGS cut grade of Ideal is estimated. With all the data on the stone right before my eyes, I couldn''t quite see the point in spending the extra money to get AGS to recertify the stone. I don''t see how that would change my impression of the beauty of the diamond whatsoever. There was a chance that the stone would have been graded a color grade higher if sent to AGS (because the colorimeter indicated it was a higher grade), but who''s going to see the cert locked up in a safety deposit box? I had plentiful information on the stone I bought, more than any other vendor provides. I was able to comprehend the information on the site and was not mislead. When I asked about a diamond that was $4000 more, I was told by Jonathan that the one I had chosen had the better cut of the two. How much more intergrity can you ask for than that?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I think you misunderstand the big deal being made.

As a cutter, I am angered by incorrect presentation of stones by other vendors. However, in order to be able to point this out and to criticize it, I must be absolutely sure that my own communication is completely above board, cannot lead to confusion and is correct. Otherwise, I am not in a position to criticize others.

Therefore, we have to try to look into every detail of our communication, question our own words, and make sure to correct where there is possible confusion. In this way, Jonathan is apparently also approaching the situation.

This may look exaggerated from your point of view, but from our point of view, it is a priority.

Live long,

 

[widget]

Date: 9/15/2006 8:46:31 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I just want to say that I think a big deal is being made over nothing.

I have to agree. I'm with Alj that the vast majority of average consumers (not PSers) think of "ideal" as a generic term for a well-cut diamond.

If AGS, Paul, etc etc object to this, they should coin a new word in to describe their super-duper standards, rather than try to claim ownership of a common adjective.

JMO
widget

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/15/2006 9:19:44 AM
Author: widget

Date: 9/15/2006 8:46:31 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I just want to say that I think a big deal is being made over nothing.

I have to agree. I''m with Alj that the vast majority of average consumers (not PSers) think of ''ideal'' as a generic term for a well-cut diamond.

If AGS, Paul, etc etc object to this, they should coin a new word in to describe their super-duper standards, rather than try to claim ownership of a common adjective.

JMO
widget

Excellent point, Widget! (Or is it okay to use the word "excellent" here without a disclaimer?

)

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/15/2006 9:19:44 AM
Author: widget

Date: 9/15/2006 8:46:31 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I just want to say that I think a big deal is being made over nothing.

I have to agree. I''m with Alj that the vast majority of average consumers (not PSers) think of ''ideal'' as a generic term for a well-cut diamond.

If AGS, Paul, etc etc object to this, they should coin a new word in to describe their super-duper standards, rather than try to claim ownership of a common adjective.

JMO
widget

I am very sorry, but if you say this, you will have to go into detail.

If a vendor can claim ''Ideal'' for a well-cut diamond freely, there needs to be at least a definition of what ''well-cut'' means. In princess-cuts, the average cut-quality is horrible, in AGS-terms, more than 50% are AGS-5 and lower. Does well-cut then mean better than average, thus AGS-4?

In a round, nobody would accept an AGS-4 as being well-cut. Hence, nobody would accept the term ''Ideal'' as meaning well-cut for such a stone.

So, why should we coin a new word, just because others are using the incorrect word?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/15/2006 10:04:18 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 9/15/2006 9:19:44 AM
Author: widget

Date: 9/15/2006 8:46:31 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I just want to say that I think a big deal is being made over nothing.

I have to agree. I''m with Alj that the vast majority of average consumers (not PSers) think of ''ideal'' as a generic term for a well-cut diamond.

If AGS, Paul, etc etc object to this, they should coin a new word in to describe their super-duper standards, rather than try to claim ownership of a common adjective.

JMO
widget

I am very sorry, but if you say this, you will have to go into detail.

If a vendor can claim ''Ideal'' for a well-cut diamond freely, there needs to be at least a definition of what ''well-cut'' means. In princess-cuts, the average cut-quality is horrible, in AGS-terms, more than 50% are AGS-5 and lower. Does well-cut then mean better than average, thus AGS-4?

In a round, nobody would accept an AGS-4 as being well-cut. Hence, nobody would accept the term ''Ideal'' as meaning well-cut for such a stone.

So, why should we coin a new word, just because others are using the incorrect word?

Paul earlier in the other thread I mentioned glass houses...
Gary correctly represents this stone on his site however you call it a AGS0 and its a ags1.
http://www.craftedbyinfinity.com/diamond.php?ID=28

http://www.diamondexpert.com/diamonds/dbs.cgi?sf=detd.setup.cgi&active=active&stock=RB20003361&submit_search=1

I didnt bother searching for more things but I can if you like so you can fix them.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/15/2006 9:19:44 AM
Author: widget

Date: 9/15/2006 8:46:31 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I just want to say that I think a big deal is being made over nothing.

I have to agree. I''m with Alj that the vast majority of average consumers (not PSers) think of ''ideal'' as a generic term for a well-cut diamond.

If AGS, Paul, etc etc object to this, they should coin a new word in to describe their super-duper standards, rather than try to claim ownership of a common adjective.

JMO
widget

To clarify.......Paul isn''t taking issue with consumers'' use of the word ''ideal'' as a generic term. That''s not the crux of the "big deal".

The big deal/issue he''s contesting is when VENDORS misuse the term and ideal (and possibly others). In the trade, those words have much more than just a generic meaning, so they have to be used more carefully to accurate portray a product.

He''s not saying consumers shouldn''t use the term ideal as a generic term. He''s saying that VENDORS are (or should be) held to a higher standard of responsibility when using such terms to identify their goods lest those terms falsely imply a comparability to superior goods.

He realizes that Jane Smith may call a stone ''ideal'' meaning well-cut, and that''s not his problem. His problem is when a VENDOR uses those terms to imply that the stone meets standards when it hasn''t been credentialled against those standards.

So, when Jon''s website publishes that a GIA stone would score an AGS0 cut grade (even presented as an estimation), or when J/A''s website publishes that a princess stone''s cut is "ideal" when it''s not, those are misrepresentations that affect cutters and other vendors.

That''s the big deal Paul is talking about. Absolutely nothing to do with consumers.