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

[Rhino]

Good morning all,

Date: 9/14/2006 6:31:24 PM
Author: 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

I''m finding the same thing. While we love to split the hairs, the main exam is how they appear in common lighting and counts most IMO. You know what though ... in any cut grading system there will always be critique about the stones that fall on the fringes. In an 11 grade system I also expected a little tighter. Not a perfect world ... what a surprise.

Peace,

 

[strmrdr]

Garry Im confused do "ideal" princess cuts not exist?

http://www.preciousmetals.com.au/Tutorial/t_fancy.htm

The best proportion standard to date has been developed by an associate in America , Dave Atlas and his laboratory Accredited Gem Appraisers ( AGA )

Dead link and the AGA charts are no longer in use by AGA.
http://www.preciousmetals.com.au/tutorial/t_fancy.htm#

need to upgrade reports
both the AGS and gia report samples are out of date im confused is someone else using fake certs?
http://www.preciousmetals.com.au/tutorial/t_cert.htm

 

[belle]

Date: 9/15/2006 10:47:39 AM
Author: strmrdr

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.

that was the best you could come up with?
first of all, i'm sure paul is keeping very busy with acutally cutting diamonds and his website may have some minor oversites here and there. obviously, even those who do spend their life on their website make 'honest' mistakes. it happens.
secondly, paul doesn't even sell to the public, so i don't see how him having a stone listed as ags0 with the link to the ags0 dqd is a problem. the actual stone that you linked to is clearly listed as an ags1 and that is where people inquiring would get their information, since that is the only place they can get the stone.

at least paul's diamond was ACTUALLY GRADED BY AGS. he didn't just guesstimate** what grade it would get.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/15/2006 10:47:39 AM
Author: strmrdr

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.

Hey Storm,

I doubt that you will find many more of these glitches, but I am happy that you did. This stone originally has an old-type AGS-report, 0. After AGS launched the new system, we asked for duplicates of all the remaining stones, and this is probably the one exception which is AGS-1 in the new system.

I did not even notice it last year.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/15/2006 10:47:39 AM
Author: strmrdr

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.

Storm, I think you're mistaken on this one.

Below is a copy of the AGS grading report for that stone, and it's graded AGS0. As such, it is valid to represent it as AGS0, and Paul isn't misrepresenting it. It would be a misrepresentation to say this is a *NEW* AGS0.....but it's correct to say that it's simply an AGS0.

This stone could be fairly represented as either "AGS0" or "AGS0 under the old AGS grading system". The only way it would be misrepresented is to say it's an "AGS0 under the new AGS grading system."

I'll grant that it is an older version of the DQD report, and it's why I think it's a mistake for AGS to continue allowing co-existence of old/new DQD formats. However, until they discontinue the practice, it is accurate to represent this stone as an AGS0.

EDITED TO ADD: And, Belle's point is right on in that Paul isn't a *vendor* representing goods the public....which is what the initial discussion centered on. It's about how vendors who sell to the public represent their goods through loose use of terms that falsely imply a pedigree that hasn't been earned.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/14/2006 9:46:04 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I do not like one little bit of it Rhino - you are playing above your station.

Put your witch hunt stick down for a second Garry. I personally take the time to study the elements of each system, communicate with the respective research gemologists in both labs, take the necessary courses in diamond grading, invest tens of thousands in the necessary technologies employed to do the job and I''m playing above my station by estimating a cut grade? You''re hysterical.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/14/2006 9:50:53 PM
Author: 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?

Page 23.

http://www.ags.org/images/memberonly/Abstract_Booklet_05.pdf#search=%22ags%20cut%20scale%22

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/15/2006 12:04:51 AM
Author: 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?

I appreciate this suggestion Alj.

I just changed that page to the following (below) and put the charts on top of one another with a small note to eliminate any ambiguity or confusion. I appreciate your thoughts and if anything here is unclear am open to your suggestions.

Kind regards,


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On our website we feature 2 cut grades for each round brilliant cut diamond we feature. One based on the new GIA Cut Grading System® and the other based on the new AGS Cut Grading System®. Since all our diamonds only feature a lab report from either of these labs confirming their respective cut grade, the other is based on our knowledge, experience and acquirement of the available technologies that go into determining the cut grade for each of these laboratories and is an estimation since the diamond was not physically sent to both labs for grading reports.

The chart below is the nomenclature used by each of the respective labs to describe their respective cut grades.

AGS Cut Grade Scores
highest to lowest
Ideal or 0
Excellent or 1
Very Good or 2
Good or 3-4
Fair or 5-7
Poor or 8-10

GIA Cut Grade Scores
highest to lowest
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor

Note: This chart is not drawing comparisons to the cut grades as each lab has different criteria and methodology that go into determining their respective grades.

In the new GIA Cut Grading System® the technologies we employ include the FacetWare™ Plug-in (which we have for our Sarin DiaMension), the Helium Scanner, gemological microscope with dark-field illumination, and the GIA DiamondDock™

In the new AGS Cut Grading System® the technologies we employ include the Desktop ASET, the AGS Performance Grading Software, Sarin DiaMension and Helium Scanners and gemological microscope with dark-field illumination.

How we arrive at our estimations:

On diamonds featuring AGS Reports we estimate the GIA Cut Grade based on the following.

A Sarin DiaMension scan in conjunction with the official GIA FacetWare software.
A physical inspection plus Helium/Sarin scan for girdle cutting features such as painting and digging and the extent to which it has been done.
A microscopic examination of the girdle thickness and the culet.
A microscopic examination of polish and symmetry features.

On diamonds featuring GIA Reports we estimate the AGS Cut Grade based on the following.
Microscopic examination of girdle thickness and culet size.
Microscopic examination of polish and symmetry features.
A Helium scan of the diamond used in conjunction with the AGS Performance Grading Software™. (Note: On diamonds larger than the Helium scanner can handle we use the Sarin DiaMension).
Inspection and analysis under the AGS ASET (Angular Spectrum Evaluation Tool).

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/15/2006 9:15:13 AM
Author: 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,

Hey Paul,

Please read my last post above (since this thread was inspiried by you

). You know I am for honesty and integrity in reporting information. Do you see anything ambiguous in my wording that you would object to? Anything misleading or unclear? I value your opinion as well as all my peers on this matter.

Regards,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/15/2006 11:19:04 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 9/15/2006 10:47:39 AM
Author: strmrdr

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.

Hey Storm,

I doubt that you will find many more of these glitches, but I am happy that you did. This stone originally has an old-type AGS-report, 0. After AGS launched the new system, we asked for duplicates of all the remaining stones, and this is probably the one exception which is AGS-1 in the new system.

I did not even notice it last year.

Its kewl Paul I know your not trying to pull anything with it, just making a point that everyone has something on their site someone can complain about. If it had been something real serious id found Id have contacted ya in private about it instead of making a point with it.
Gary has ya covered on it.

But my point stands that a lot of vendors need to worry about their own houses before they go after others and since ya started it this time you were it.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/15/2006 11:19:52 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/15/2006 10:47:39 AM
Author: strmrdr

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.

Storm, I think you''re mistaken on this one.

Below is a copy of the AGS grading report for that stone, and it''s graded AGS0. As such, it is valid to represent it as AGS0, and Paul isn''t misrepresenting it. It would be a misrepresentation to say this is a *NEW* AGS0.....but it''s correct to say that it''s simply an AGS0.

This stone could be fairly represented as either ''AGS0'' or ''AGS0 under the old AGS grading system''. The only way it would be misrepresented is to say it''s an ''AGS0 under the new AGS grading system.''

I''ll grant that it is an older version of the DQD report, and it''s why I think it''s a mistake for AGS to continue allowing co-existence of old/new DQD formats. However, until they discontinue the practice, it is accurate to represent this stone as an AGS0.

EDITED TO ADD: And, Belle''s point is right on in that Paul isn''t a *vendor* representing goods the public....which is what the initial discussion centered on. It''s about how vendors who sell to the public represent their goods through loose use of terms that falsely imply a pedigree that hasn''t been earned.

Thanks for steering this back to topic. You''re correct, this is the issue. Not on the consumer to consumer level but on the vendor to consumer level.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/15/2006 11:49:58 AM
Author: strmrdr

Its kewl Paul I know your not trying to pull anything with it, just making a point that everyone has something on their site someone can complain about. If it had been something real serious id found Id have contacted ya in private about it instead of making a point with it.

But my point stands that a lot of vendors need to worry about their own houses before they go after others and since ya started it this time you were it.

Yes, but the spirit of these posts isn''t directed at minor errors or oversights, Storm.

It''s about the systemic and ongoing practices of implying that stones meet given grades when they haven''t earned them. It''s not an oversight that one of the GIA stones on GOG''s site implies it would earn an AGS0 cut grade. EVERY stone is represented that way.....systemic.

Your example on Paul''s site isn''t the same thing....that diamond does/did have a valid DQD. It was, in FACT (not just in guess) an AGS0 stone. That''s hugely different from claiming a stone would score an AGS0 Cut grade when it never *actually* has. Or the J/A example.

 

[Regular Guy]

Seems like these things are working themselves out.

An image:

The movie, the perfect storm.

The ship is at sea.

The owner of the ship comes into the bar where all the crew live.

One of the folks at the bar says: What the hell are you doing here.

The ship owner says (something like): That's my ship out there.

Also, Jonathan says:

Date: 9/15/2006 11:21:02 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 9/14/2006 9:46:04 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I do not like one little bit of it Rhino - you are playing above your station.

Put your witch hunt stick down for a second Garry. I personally take the time to study the elements of each system, communicate with the respective research gemologists in both labs, take the necessary courses in diamond grading, invest tens of thousands in the necessary technologies employed to do the job and I'm playing above my station by estimating a cut grade? You're hysterical.

The old guy at the bar (and I) say: give it to him.

But...I'd knock out the hysterical line.

P.S. Do consider a few tangential questions:

What's the difference between super ideal & ideal
Do you have to buy AGS
Do some diamonds as good as ones that get AGS0 get sent to GIA anyway
If you buy GIA, and can return your diamond, what assurances do you need to decide to keep it
How effectively can you buy via the internet, via in person
If you use as your criteria for deciding to keep it, is this as good as AGS0, what independent appraiser is qualified enough to help you with assessing that criteria
Does the appraiser have to be independent?
Which appraiser has the necessary equipment to compare as you'd like them to...or is equipment not necessary at all.
Who has the best equipment?
What premium are you prepared to pay to be assured you do have the best

 

[mrssalvo]

I don't have a problem and wasn't confused with jon's ** estimated cut grade. each vendor has a different method JA's has been pointed out and here's WF's for example, you can go under the expert selection and choose your shape. Ideal round. then a page of round stones come up..some in house some not. to me, if I don't know to look at numbers/certs I'd assume that any of the stones are ideal cut but they may not make the AGS ideal...many state round ideal cut GIA...I realize WF isn't using the term as the cut grade but it can still and be confusing or misleading.. any jewelry store i've every been in tells me the stones they are showing me are ideal cuts, and most are far from what AGS would give that grade. I just don't see how anyone is going to get every vendor in the world to stop using the term just like Q-tips can't keep people from calling their generic brand cotton swabs Q-tip.

and if an AGS0 stone has an old cert..it should be stated. I think it's misleading to state something as an AGS0 when it may or may not be one any longer. send it back and get the new grade or represent it as an old AGS0.


Edit to clarify...

 

[belle]

mrss (and anyone else who thinks the issue is with just the word ''ideal'')
it''s not.

the issue is connecting a diamond with the ''ags ideal'' grade when it has not been sent to ags. there are people who work very hard to cut diamonds that will earn the ACTUAL ideal grade from ags. when other vendors start tagging diamonds as ''ags ideal'' to diamonds that are not graded by ags, it undermines the whole process.

of course there are many, many different versions of ''ideal'' out there in the jewelry industry now. it has become the catchword to attract buyers. it''s annoying to say the least but what is worse, is the use of ''ags ideal'' without ags grading. there is no way any one person can make even the most educated guess about what an ags grade would be. a good example is the diamond paul mentioned earlier (not sure if it was this thread) that he kept sending to ags for the ''0'' grade and it was returned as ''1''. the only way you can say a stone is ags ideal, is to have it graded by ags. that is the issue.

 

[belle]

Date: 9/15/2006 12:51:21 PM
Author: mrssalvo
.....here's WF's for example, you can go under the expert selection and choose your shape. Ideal round. then a page of round stones come up..some in house some not.

all expert selection stones are in house.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/15/2006 12:51:21 PM
Author: mrssalvo

I don't have a problem and wasn't confused with jon's ** estimated cut grade. each vendor has a different method JA's has been pointed out and here's WF's for example, you can go under the expert selection and choose your shape. Ideal round. then a page of round stones come up..some in house some not. to me, if I don't know to look at numbers/certs I'd assume that any of the stones are ideal cut but they may not make the AGS ideal...many state round ideal cut GIA...I realize WF isn't using the term as the cut grade but it can still and be confusing or misleading.. any jewelry store i've every been in tells me the stones they are showing me are ideal cuts, and most are far from what AGS would give that grade. I just don't see how anyone is going to get every vendor in the world to stop using the term just like Q-tips can't keep people from calling their generic brand cotton swabs Q-tip.

and if an AGS0 stone has an old cert..it should be stated. I think it's misleading to state something as an AGS0 when it may or may not be one any longer. send it back and get the new grade or represent it as an old AGS0.

MrsSalvo, our historical use of the term ideal has been to indicate rounds with traditional ideal proportions - which all of the diamonds on the page you showed have.

Remember that before 2006 this was the only way we could indicate what level of cut a GIA graded diamond had (no grade for cut existed on the GIA report).

We must constantly evolve as new systems and terms are introduced - and our search feature is being revamped. Reading this thread, including the word ‘proportions’ may now be appropriate to identify diamonds conforming to our interpretation of traditional ideal measurements. We appreciate the input.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 9/15/2006 1:08:16 PM
Author: belle



the issue is connecting a diamond with the ''ags ideal'' grade when it has not been sent to ags. there are people who work very hard to cut diamonds that will earn the ACTUAL ideal grade from ags. when other vendors start tagging diamonds as ''ags ideal'' to diamonds that are not graded by ags, it undermines the whole process.


of course there are many, many different versions of ''ideal'' out there in the jewelry industry now. it has become the catchword to attract buyers. it''s annoying to say the least but what is worse, is the use of ''ags ideal'' without ags grading. there is no way any one person can make even the most educated guess about what an ags grade would be. a good example is the diamond paul mentioned earlier (not sure if it was this thread) that he kept sending to ags for the ''0'' grade and it was returned as ''1''. the only way you can say a stone is ags ideal, is to have it graded by ags. that is the issue.

I''m all for keeping the AGS0 Ideal sacred. I''ve got one and like that it has that distiguished cert with it. But, I guess I just do not have a problem with a vendor estimating the grade of another lab be it GIA or AGS on a stone that the vendor owns. GOG is not selling the stone as something it isn''t, just making a comparison that many people like to know. I alreadly made the suggestion in another thread that GOG should only * the estimated lab and put that * info on the same page b/c it was confusing when you see both labs mentioned and I can see how someone might think the stone had both certs or whatever.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 9/15/2006 1:23:55 PM
Author: belle

Date: 9/15/2006 12:51:21 PM

Author: mrssalvo

.....here''s WF''s for example, you can go under the expert selection and choose your shape. Ideal round. then a page of round stones come up..some in house some not.

all expert selection stones are in house.

yep, you''re right

got to typing faster than the brain was working..

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 9/15/2006 1:24:00 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 9/15/2006 12:51:21 PM

Author: mrssalvo


I don''t have a problem and wasn''t confused with jon''s ** estimated cut grade. each vendor has a different method JA''s has been pointed out and here''s WF''s for example, you can go under the expert selection and choose your shape. Ideal round. then a page of round stones come up..some in house some not. to me, if I don''t know to look at numbers/certs I''d assume that any of the stones are ideal cut but they may not make the AGS ideal...many state round ideal cut GIA...I realize WF isn''t using the term as the cut grade but it can still and be confusing or misleading.. any jewelry store i''ve every been in tells me the stones they are showing me are ideal cuts, and most are far from what AGS would give that grade. I just don''t see how anyone is going to get every vendor in the world to stop using the term just like Q-tips can''t keep people from calling their generic brand cotton swabs Q-tip.


and if an AGS0 stone has an old cert..it should be stated. I think it''s misleading to state something as an AGS0 when it may or may not be one any longer. send it back and get the new grade or represent it as an old AGS0.

MrsSalvo, our historical use of the term ideal has been to indicate rounds with traditional ideal proportions - which all of the diamonds on the page you showed have.


Remember that before 2006 this was the only way we could indicate what level of cut a GIA graded diamond had (no grade for cut existed on the GIA report).


We must constantly evolve as new systems and terms are introduced and our search feature is being revamped. Reading this thread, including the word ‘proportions’ may now be appropriate to identify diamonds conforming to our interpretation of traditional ideal measurements.

John,

Believe me I understand

Not trying to pick on WF and I don''t have a problem with how ya''ll list your stones either. Just making the point that to average buyers many things can seem misleading or confusing, especially with the widespread misuse of the word "ideal."

 

[belle]

Date: 9/15/2006 1:24:18 PM
Author: mrssalvo

Date: 9/15/2006 1:08:16 PM
Author: belle



the issue is connecting a diamond with the ''ags ideal'' grade when it has not been sent to ags. there are people who work very hard to cut diamonds that will earn the ACTUAL ideal grade from ags. when other vendors start tagging diamonds as ''ags ideal'' to diamonds that are not graded by ags, it undermines the whole process.


of course there are many, many different versions of ''ideal'' out there in the jewelry industry now. it has become the catchword to attract buyers. it''s annoying to say the least but what is worse, is the use of ''ags ideal'' without ags grading. there is no way any one person can make even the most educated guess about what an ags grade would be. a good example is the diamond paul mentioned earlier (not sure if it was this thread) that he kept sending to ags for the ''0'' grade and it was returned as ''1''. the only way you can say a stone is ags ideal, is to have it graded by ags. that is the issue.

I''m all for keeping the AGS0 Ideal sacred. I''ve got one and like that it has that distiguished cert with it. But, I guess I just do not have a problem with a vendor estimating the grade of another lab be it GIA or AGS on a stone that the vendor owns. GOG is not selling the stone as something it isn''t, just making a comparison that many people like to know. I alreadly made the suggestion in another thread that GOG should only * the estimated lab and put that * info on the same page b/c it was confusing when you see both labs mentioned and I can see how someone might think the stone had both certs or whatever.

i understand your point and respect it.

i do have a problem with it because i have seen thread after thread where people need this clarified. so, it''s not just about what one vendor says is ideal, that another vendor questions when that vendor is doing basically the same thing (which isn''t a good thing!)

it''s about confusing potential buyers. if all of us ''seasoned'' diamond shoppers here were confused about it, you can bet there are thousands of newbies that are moreso.

 

[mrssalvo]

well I guess we all can agree that much clarification is needed

i think i need a drink and it''s not even lunchtime

 

[whatmeworry]

Date: 9/15/2006 1:38:54 PM
Author: mrssalvo
well I guess we all can agree that much clarification is needed

i think i need a drink and it''s not even lunchtime

Look like the dog''s already had one

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/15/2006 1:29:33 PM
Author: mrssalvo

John,

Believe me I understand

Not trying to pick on WF and I don't have a problem with how ya'll list your stones either. Just making the point that to average buyers many things can seem misleading or confusing, especially with the widespread misuse of the word 'ideal.'

No worries Lady Salvo. My ‘pickometer’ was not going off. Actually, I’m right there with you on this. Did you see my laundry list of confuzzling terms from P1 (see the bottom of this post)?

There used to be no GIA grade and proportions-grading only for any interpretation of 'ideal.'

Recent evolutions are causing many of us to rethink how we categorize & communicate these things.

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 9/13/2006 3:29:37 PM
uthor:JohnQuixoteThe 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.

HI:

It is interesting how the use of the term "ideal" is underscored by ubiquity in both functional and historical terms; as evidenced by Tolkowsky's work and other's subsequent methological refinement.

Language is pervasive. And a powerful tool. In fact, it is the major force shaping the interpretation of our reality and our perceptions of both concepts and phenomena. In the gemmological world the concept "ideal" is associated with a very a high standard and likely is viewed as a "benchmark" in the industry for cutting & finishing excellence.

And although cutters may stick to their parameters in achieving their defined "gold standard", there is no such consistency out there for use of the terminology, and this leads to a melting of the distinguishable boundaries on how language is used and how terms are conceptualized by sellers and the public alike. When terms like "ideal" are used out of popular concensus and not defined within the context of what is actually being offered for sale, it confounds the buyer not to mention knowledge development. Hence, IMHO no new language need to be developed, just appropraite and judicious use of what exists.


cheers--Sharon

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/15/2006 2:17:44 PM
Author: canuk-gal

And although cutters may stick to their parameters in achieving their defined ''gold standard'', these is no such consistency out there for use of the terminology, and this leads to a melting of the distinguishable boundaries on how language is used and how terms are conceptualized by sellers and the public alike. When terms like ''ideal'' are used out of popular concensus and not defined within the context of what is actually being offered for sale, it confounds the buyer not to mention knowledge development. Hence, IMHO no new language need to be developed, just appropraite and judicious use of what exists.

cheers--Sharon

This is a good reset of the initial concept I intended with this thread, which was to discuss generic use of ''ideal'' versus ''AGS Ideal.''

As for appropriateness, ''AGS Ideal'' will be more clear in March when they stop offering proportions-based ''old'' DQDs for rounds. Generic ''ideal'' will no doubt continue to have different meanings.

 

[JohnQuixote]

A by-product of this discussion is how the new GIA EX grade and the new AGS Ideal grade are juxtaposed. For reasons Sharon alluded to, decisions about what is appropriate will be site-based. Some may exercise practices others do not.

Vouching for my fellow professionals I’ll say this:

Don’t ever underestimate what a customer will ask!

(especially with new systems evolving)

When someone is considering a diamond with an AGS document it’s now logical to expect the question “What cut grade would it receive from GIA?” There is nothing wrong with providing an educated opinion as long as you ethically qualify it as your own prediction.

In past years, before GIA’s cut grade, we were often asked “Would this GIA-graded diamond be ‘ideal’?” That question is open-ended, and it has been up to us to bridge the gap between what historical or adapted uses of ‘ideal cut’ are, versus what ‘AGS Ideal’ implies (the topic of this thread).

At Whiteflash we consider the AGS light performance grade to have redefined the specific ‘AGS Ideal’ pedigree. It’s a new benchmark; separate from other uses of ‘ideal’ and our counsel is that the only way to acquire the AGS Ideal grade is to send the diamond to the lab.

Of course we must be prepared for the question “Would this GIA graded diamond be an AGS Ideal?” Again, we feel there is nothing wrong in giving an educated opinion. We can discuss the nature of the LP metric relative to cutting guidelines & proportions, we can use PGS, etc. (don’t forget polish & symmetry and disclosure of different standards) ... but without an AGS document it must remain a prediction. If an ethical prediction helps the client there's nothing wrong with that. But if we sense someone nailing us down for an AGS Ideal 0 judgment we direct them to diamonds with an accompanying DQD. It’s a matter of provenance.


Here is something not yet touched on: Patronage. If we use the AGS Ideal term to add-value shouldn’t we then add-value to the AGS? Selling a diamond as having all the bells & whistles of the ‘AGS Ideal cut grade' (light performance and polish/sym included) without compensating the lab seems to be using their pedigree while taking money out of their pockets. Same thing goes for GIA. That’s just our position.

This is not absolute, nor is it a condemnation of other practices. It’s just perspective, and some people may think we’re missing the boat. We may be - we’re not infallible. We value other input as we consider how to grow in our categorization and communications. This thread has already provided a lot of food for thought.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/15/2006 2:57:26 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

...decisions about what is appropriate will be site-based. Some may exercise practices others do not.

...We value other input as we consider how to grow in our categorization and communications. This thread has already provided a lot of food for thought.

Clearly this thread is about:

- categories
- the minimum thresholds associated with reaching them, and
- the patterns of practice exhibited by vendors who use these

I hope ideas reviewed here will be put into practice, where they are not already, as associating definitions with categories affords an opportunity to brag about them, when the rigor associated with them can be described with appropriate pride.

To mention two broadly available styles of vendor practice...

1) you don''t see the diamond, it is not critical to, since it has the paper, you can call it ideal...and possibly AGS ideal, even. Does it matter that you saw the diamond? Before or after it is set? It may depend on what value added resources you can bring to the evaluation, beyond what the certificate provides

2) you do see the diamond, and you care what it looks like. What tests do you run on it? Does it matter how extensive these are? Will that difference reflect on how broadly you can describe it?

Otherwise, like movie stars, and Princess Diana, it''s nice if you can give them their distance, but probably, if you can''t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. People magazine call out for your bios, and if you share it, others will compare to you, etc., and you are probably permanently in the public domain.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Ira,

Quick thought by thought.

Date: 9/15/2006 12:49:18 PM
Author: Regular Guy

P.S. Do consider a few tangential questions:

What''s the difference between super ideal & ideal

Generally the term "super" in front of "ideal" connotated stones with H&A optical symmetry. Purists would apply the term to H&A stones with only GIA Ex/Ex polish/symmetry with AGS Ideal proportions in the old system or AGS Triple Ideals (old system) with H&A optical symmetry. Most of us however would include stones with H&A optical symmetry that didn''t necessarily get the GIA Ex/Ex or AGS Triple Ideal rating like EightStars as their level of craftsmanship was no less than any other H&A on the market.

Do you have to buy AGS

Nope although I do and support them.

Do some diamonds as good as ones that get AGS0 get sent to GIA anyway

Absolutely.

If you buy GIA, and can return your diamond, what assurances do you need to decide to keep it

I''d suppose that is up to the individual consumer and their level of confidence in the product they purchased.

How effectively can you buy via the internet, via in person

IMO with rounds and princess cuts very effective depending on who you''re dealing with. With fancy shapes I personally encourage people to see the product.

If you use as your criteria for deciding to keep it, is this as good as AGS0, what independent appraiser is qualified enough to help you with assessing that criteria

Appraisers who are familiar with the diamond gradiing procedures of AGS laboratories and have the proper equipment for the job.

Does the appraiser have to be independent?

They should be but not necessary. As a store owner/appraiser when we perform appraisals we show the consumer how we arrived at the conclusions we draw and demonstrate why we might disagree or agree with a labs grade.

Which appraiser has the necessary equipment to compare as you''d like them to...or is equipment not necessary at all.

There are a few appraisers we generally recommend who have earned their reputation but since I don''t like to play favorites we will generally send folks links and let them research the services of these appraisers for themself. All of my personal favorites list all their services on their website. It is up to the consumer to decide which data is most important to them as well as the experience of the appraisers they are choosing among.

Who has the best equipment?

IMHO ... you do since it is your eyes that must be pleased in the end. Ie. The best appraiser with the most sophisticated lab equipment can give you a 2 thumbs up on a stone. If your eyes, or more importantly your fiance''/wife''s eyes are not pleased with the end result what you may deem as the best equipment will all be for naught.

What premium are you prepared to pay to be assured you do have the best

Personally ... when I''m shopping, service is extremely important to me. I will pay a premium for excellent service and for the one who goes out of their way to help me understand the product better and help educate me on the pros and cons of the item in a straight forward manner, I am happy to pay a premium to a professional who knows his product. This happened with me when I purchased my last HDTV. I walked into a discount store conglomerate and knew more than the salesman did.

I walked into another store and the saleman who helped me really knew his product and was able to demonstrate and explain the differences to me between what he had (admittedly some of the stuff went over my head) but he was passionate about his job and knew his product. I still purchase from that same gentleman today and have been back for many other things.

Peace,

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/15/2006 12:51:21 PM
Author: mrssalvo

I don''t have a problem and wasn''t confused with jon''s ** estimated cut grade. each vendor has a different method JA''s

Right now, there are 20,000+ (wow, that''s a lot!) registered members of PS. How many registered members are online right now? 60. How many PSers are ongoing, regular contributors? 100, maybe? That group of 100 would include you and DS, as well as myself and several other participants in this thread.

Given that, it''s not reasonable to think that a newbie will enjoy the same ease of understanding you do. You both know FAR FAR more than the average 2-week-shelf-life PSer!

Neither of you are in the same place that a newbie is.....someone who is so new that he has to ask "what is ags"? You aren''t confused because you both know enough to understand the distinctions between ideal (generic), AGS0 Ideal, what a DQD is, and to know that there used to be a different grading method at AGS. Most newbies don''t know these things.