shape
carat
color
clarity

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

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
Date: 9/15/2006 1:08:16 PM
Author: 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.
Hi belle,

Actually it is just with the word ideal as Alj pointed out earlier. The vendor to consumer representation of the term is what''s at issue. This was Paul''s point regarding the princess cut that was listed as being "ideal" (not "AGS ideal") which started this whole discourse.

I want you to know belle that I both sympathize and agree with your concerns. It grieves me personally to see any website list stones as ideal when in fact they are not and understand your concern over my own site that even uses AGS initials before it as in "AGS Cut Grade". I have contacted my web master and am awaiting for him to make the necessary changes for me as I type this to change this wording to be more clear as MrsSalvo has suggested. Ie. having only the asterisk over the estimated grade and also clear wording before each grade that is estimated. On the older AGS/GIA certs that do not have the new and most current cut grading metrics both the AGS and GIA grades will have to be estimates unless we choose to send them to one lab or the other for a new report. I view this as a value added service to our clients.

I guess a question I would like to ask you belle and any consumer or peer reading is this.

If you would be so kind as to read our disclaimer which I posted above and which link is above. After reading this and considering we are changing the wording on each individual diamonds page to say either "estimated GIA Cut Grade" (when its an AGS stone) or "estimated AGS Cut Grade" (when its a GIA stone) do you feel this is a fair and accurate representation?

If not, I am asking ... what can I do to make it more clear?

Regards,
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Date: 9/15/2006 12:51:21 PM
Author: mrssalvo

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.
Wholeheartedly agree with this. Mrs. Salvo is correct to note that you''re never gonna get the general public to stop calling well-cut stones "ideal".......and I don''t think that should be the goal.

Here''s a common scenario: Johnny Shopper goes out to B&M stores looking for a stone. At each store, he''s given all kinds of information on why that diamond costs more than this one.

Vendor #1 touts his 66-facet line, explaining that these facets allow the stone to mirror the performance of an ideal cut. Vendor #2 pushes his Signature collection and pitches them as ''these are among the most ideal, perfectly cut stones and see how much better they look?" Vendor #3 steers toward the Certified collection and says these stones perform as ideals do.

When Johnny is done, the consistent message he''s heard is "ideal" stone is what he''s supposed to want.....it''s what everyone says is the best. SO......you aren''t going to change the nature of consumers to use that term in a generic way (as Mrs. S. points out with the q-tip example). Can''t be done. Shoppers are going to hear "ideal", and they are going to then go and see how to find an "ideal" stone.
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
Date: 9/15/2006 2:17:44 PM
Author: 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.
40.gif


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
Excellent point and post Sharon. IHO it is the context in which the word is used that must be used more judiciously across the board.
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Date: 9/15/2006 1:24:18 PM
Author: mrssalvo

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.
This is where I disagree.

It''s one thing to imply that a stone is well-cut...but there is a difference between the words "cut" and "grade".

''Cut'' in the broad sense means arrangement of facets....''grade'' implies having achieved a standard. Just as saying "term paper" suggests a written report of indeterminate quality (generic), and saying "A+ paper" implies a written report that would score 98-100 on a grading scale (lab specific).

Saying a "Mr. Thompson A+-paper" suggests that Mr. Thompson would bestow a score of 98-100 on a paper.

So, when vendors like WF or ERD or Blue Nile ask you to sort by cut as they all do (good, very good, premium, ideal), they are trying to zero in on the make you want to buy. (GENERIC)

That is hugely different in my opinion than estimating what a grading lab might assign as a cut grade. Especially when the stone *comes* with a grading report for a reputable lab already! If someone has confidence in a GIA grading report, their grade assignment should be sufficient. If they want an AGS stone, then buy an AGS stone in the first place.

Either it has the paper, or it doesn''t.

Before GIA even gave a cut grade, people would ask if the stone was "ideal"....and that typically meant facet arrangement. They didn''t ask THEN if a stone was AGS0 Cut Grade equivalent, so there''s no reason to think that''s started happening now. Now, there''s MORE cut (facet arrangement) info than ever before on a GIA stone.

If there has never been a need before to represent GIA stones as "ags cut grade 0 equivalent" (and there wasn''t), there isn''t one now.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,423
Date: 9/15/2006 11:15:46 AM
Author: 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
Thank you for the audit Storm, we are working on the site soon after just finishing off some wonderful new stuff on the www.ideal-scope.com site where if you go to how to use you will get a great new perspective on ASET.

But am I guilty of something related to this thread?
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Date: 9/15/2006 12:51:21 PM
Author: mrssalvo


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.
Here''s a perfect example of how language can be vague and misleading......"old cert" meaning how long it''s been since the grading report was issued, or "old cert" meaning under a formerly used system? Because that''s part of the problem.

Last night, I looked at an AGS report that was generated within the last 30 days, so that''s not "old", right? But, it was "old" in that the report reflected grading results based on a formerly-used grading system. "Old" in this case means the methodology, not the age of the report.

So, it won''t be enough to state that it''s an "old" certificate. It would be more clear to state that the grading result was arrived at using a former grading method that has been revamped, and that the stone may or may not still achieve that result under the new grading methodology.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,423
Date: 9/15/2006 4:25:16 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 9/15/2006 2:17:44 PM
Author: 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.
40.gif


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
Excellent point and post Sharon. IHO it is the context in which the word is used that must be used more judiciously across the board.
Jonathon i do not think anyone has a problem with you using the word "ideal", or even super dooper ideal.

But will you drop your implied inference that a stone is graded ideal by AGS?

(I have no problem the other way around because GIA use a simple parametric system and less strict (more commonsense) sym and pol standards.)
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
Hey John,


Date: 9/15/2006 2:57:26 PM
Author: 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!
37.gif
(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).
Being on the front lines you know where we''re coming from, especially under the old system differentiating between standard ideal cuts (only ideal proportions) vs AGS Ideals.
emthup.gif



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.
I coudln''t agree more. I have a question for ya. How do you feel about the fact that AGS members CAN represent a diamond as an AGS ideal with no documentation whatsoever?


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.
emthup.gif
Here are my thoughts on this John. Inspecting stones from both labs I personally see it as redundant to have to send the diamond to both labs for a report UNLESS of course I had absolutely no clue on how to grade a diamond with respect to cut. Then I could see sending it to both. In the realm of things as they currently exist on the market I see both labs ultimately benefitting from the education they provide both to people in the trade and to consumers and the availability they make of their products to those of us in the trade who will take the initiative to utilize them. Why? Because the more their name is exposed and spread the more the demand will increase for their product. Even though GIA is the big dog, and EGL is way more popular than AGS ... our friends in AGS are no dummies and I respect how they cooperate as team players with their colleagues at GIA. This is very beneficial for them and to their lab and ultimately to all of us.

Peace,
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
Date: 9/15/2006 4:37:19 PM
Author: aljdewey

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

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.
This is where I disagree.

It''s one thing to imply that a stone is well-cut...but there is a difference between the words ''cut'' and ''grade''.

''Cut'' in the broad sense means arrangement of facets....''grade'' implies having achieved a standard. Just as saying ''term paper'' suggests a written report of indeterminate quality (generic), and saying ''A+ paper'' implies a written report that would score 98-100 on a grading scale (lab specific).

Saying a ''Mr. Thompson A+-paper'' suggests that Mr. Thompson would bestow a score of 98-100 on a paper.
To relate this to the topic at hand. Say an apprentice of Mr. Thompson grades a paper. This apprentice has studied thousands of term papers Mr. Thompson has already graded and even utilizes the same identical equipment Mr. Thompson employs in his grading procedures (thesaurus, dictionary, etc.).

Are you saying it would be unfair of Mr. Thompson''s apprentice to say "Based on my knowledge and experience I would estimate Mr. Thompson''s grade to be such and such?"
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Date: 9/15/2006 1:08:16 PM
Author: belle
mrss (and anyone else who thinks the issue is with just the word ''ideal'')
it''s not.
actually it was, you brought the other up to slam GOG as per usual when the topic was using "ideal" as a generic term not anything else.
Maybe I should start treating the companies I don''t much care for that way instead of just ignoring them. (companies not people because I do like some of their employees)
woops I forgot I get yelled at for saying I like one diamond over another so id better not.
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Date: 9/15/2006 4:19:07 PM
Author: Rhino

I guess a question I would like to ask you belle and any consumer or peer reading is this.

If you would be so kind as to read our disclaimer which I posted above and which link is above. After reading this and considering we are changing the wording on each individual diamonds page to say either ''estimated GIA Cut Grade'' (when its an AGS stone) or ''estimated AGS Cut Grade'' (when its a GIA stone) do you feel this is a fair and accurate representation?
Yes and no.

Yes, it removes the even the hint of appearance of trying to intentionally mislead by hiding the fine print that "Oh, by the way, it''s not actually an AGS0 stone" on an obscure back page somewhere.

No, because it still gives the appearance (even though I know it''s not your intent) that you as a vendor are trying to bolster your product and advance your sale by invoking the impliied assurance of "AGS worthy". It''s like trying to claim something gets the "good housekeeping seal of approval".....except that it''s AGS, and they haven''t really approved anything.

It gives you the appearance of riding the coattails of a grading lab that you aren''t using and aren''t paying, and leveraging the weight/reputation of the AGS name to your benefit. It feels just as smarmy as setting up a knock-off handbag store next to the Prada store and putting a sign on your bags that says "estimated Prada quality".

In my opinion, it gives you (and anyone else doing it) the feel of the stereotypical used car salesman......doing something that isn''t technically or officially a breach (because you''ve disclaimed to high heaven), but it''s of questionable ethical taste.

You guys don''t need to do this. GOG has a great reputation, and you sell great products. You folks back up your goods with SO many quality tools that speak to the high quality of your goods that you don''t really need to boost up your products with a claim of "estimated AGS cut grade" or "estimated GIA cut grade".

I know your intent is good
1.gif
, but it could reflect on you in a way you wouldn''t want it to.

There is a difference between having an incidental conversation with a customer and taking the step to publish estimated opinions in writing. If you and I are speaking and I ask you "would this stone get an AGS0 grade", you could explain why you feel it would, etc.....it''s an anecdotal conversation about a stone. That''s different from a wholesale, written approach of estimating cut grades for every stone and trying to protect that estimate with a disclaimer that you can''t even be sure is read, much less understood.

I think it''s fine to have the incidental conversation. I think it''s questionable and essentially not fine to do the wholesale, written, every stone approach. Just my honest opinion.
 

belle

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
10,285
Date: 9/15/2006 5:03:28 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/15/2006 1:08:16 PM
Author: belle
mrss (and anyone else who thinks the issue is with just the word ''ideal'')
it''s not.
actually it was, you brought the other up to slam GOG as per usual when the topic was using ''ideal'' as a generic term not anything else.
Maybe I should start treating the companies I don''t much care for that way instead of just ignoring them. (companies not people because I do like some of their employees)
woops I forgot I get yelled at for saying I like one diamond over another so id better not.
actually it wasn''t but thank you for trying to give me so much credit.
28.gif

as for ''slamming gog per usual'' i''m still waiting for you to answer to your last claims https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/iso-sage-advice-comparison-please.49177/
kindly stop making accusations which are untrue.
35.gif
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
I appreciate your candidness and the dialogue Alj. I will think more intently on this. Upon more input I will review the responses with my staff and make a final determination. At this point in time I don''t see harm in offering an honest estimation/prediction as JohnQ feels the same as I do about this but I do agree that it should not be hidden on a back page somewhere and should be up there and up front if I''m going to list it. We will always make every effort to listen to consumer input (such as yours and the regs here on PS) and change as necessary. BTW I never had the chance to thank you for a suggestion you made to me long ago about changing our website. Please allow me to do that now. Thank you.
5.gif
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Date: 9/15/2006 4:52:23 PM
Author: Rhino

I have a question for ya. How do you feel about the fact that AGS members CAN represent a diamond as an AGS ideal with no documentation whatsoever?
Example?


Date: 9/15/2006 4:52:23 PM
Author: Rhino

In the realm of things as they currently exist on the market I see both labs ultimately benefitting from the education they provide both to people in the trade and to consumers and the availability they make of their products to those of us in the trade who will take the initiative to utilize them. Why? Because the more their name is exposed and spread the more the demand will increase for their product. Even though GIA is the big dog, and EGL is way more popular than AGS ... our friends in AGS are no dummies and I respect how they cooperate as team players with their colleagues at GIA. This is very beneficial for them and to their lab and ultimately to all of us.

Ok, this is where the wheels fall WAY off the bus, Jon. LANDMINE HIT.

I hear this similar argument all the time relative to copyright infringement. The argument goes something like this: "Oh, that publication will be glad that we helped to provide broader exposure for them by copying their stuff and increasing demand". Yah, right.

Let me ask you: what was *your own* reaction when people were ripping GOG H&A images and using them to sell their own diamonds (not yours)? Did you feel it was beneficial for you? Did you realize an increased demand for your stones?

Hey, even better: Would it be okay with you if other vendors start saying on their website for every stone "Estimated GOG-equivalent H&A quality"?

I have to be honest; in my opinion, it's a lame rationalization. If you honestly want to benefit AGS, then become a member and pay membership dues to them. Then you won't just think or assume you're benefitting/supporting them; you'll *know* you are. (And, then you too can use the AGS PGS software and have the ethical green light to assign a predictive grade....bonus!)

It's outlandish to really think it's beneficial for AGS to use their name to hawk stones graded by a competing lab while paying that other lab (GIA) the grading report revenue! But, if that's your argument, maybe your competitors can take a page from that book. Maybe some of the smaller, less well known vendors (yanno, with lesser name recognition as you feel AGS isuffers from) will start putting "estimated to be GOG-worthy" designations on all their stones.
9.gif

 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Date: 9/15/2006 5:34:22 PM
Author: Rhino
I appreciate your candidness and the dialogue Alj. I will think more intently on this. Upon more input I will review the responses with my staff and make a final determination. At this point in time I don't see harm in offering an honest estimation/prediction as JohnQ feels the same as I do about this but I do agree that it should not be hidden on a back page somewhere and should be up there and up front if I'm going to list it. We will always make every effort to listen to consumer input (such as yours and the regs here on PS) and change as necessary.
He does? I think you misread.

But I don't want to speak for John, so let's ask him.

John, do you agree with Jon that there's no harm in offering an honest estimation/prediction about how a grading lab would grade a stone.......for every stone, in writing, on a customer-facing webpage, even with a disclaimer? Was that what you meant?



BTW I never had the chance to thank you for a suggestion you made to me long ago about changing our website. Please allow me to do that now. Thank you.

You're welcome.
1.gif
In looking at your website, it's improved greatly in terms of offering the views that would allow customers to search for specific parameters. Much more user friendly and useful.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,423
Date: 9/15/2006 5:41:10 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/15/2006 5:34:22 PM
Author: Rhino
I appreciate your candidness and the dialogue Alj. I will think more intently on this. Upon more input I will review the responses with my staff and make a final determination. At this point in time I don''t see harm in offering an honest estimation/prediction as JohnQ feels the same as I do about this but I do agree that it should not be hidden on a back page somewhere and should be up there and up front if I''m going to list it. We will always make every effort to listen to consumer input (such as yours and the regs here on PS) and change as necessary.
He does? I think you misread.

But I don''t want to speak for John, so let''s ask him.

John, do you agree with Jon that there''s no harm in offering an honest estimation/prediction about how a grading lab would grade a stone.......for every stone, in writing, on a customer-facing webpage, even with a disclaimer? Was that what you meant?



BTW I never had the chance to thank you for a suggestion you made to me long ago about changing our website. Please allow me to do that now. Thank you.

You''re welcome.
1.gif
In looking at your website, it''s improved greatly in terms of offering the views that would allow customers to search for specific parameters. Much more user friendly and useful.
I think it is unfair to ask John to respond to this typical Rhino demagogy
 

RockDoc

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
2,509
Rhino wrote:

I coudln''t agree more. I have a question for ya. How do you feel about the fact that AGS members CAN represent a diamond as an AGS ideal with no documentation whatsoever?

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.



________________________________

AGS members that are permitted to use the grading system, have a clear responsibility to do it ethically and by their rules. (AGS titleholders have a yearly exam that must be passed to use the title, and must be employed by an AGS Firm Member Store).

If an AGS member represented a diamond to be estimated as an AGS 0 Cut grade based on the new system, then he would be put in the AGS Ethics Frying Pan, if it was based on something other than the prescribed requirements, i.e.

1. qualified GEMOLOGIST that is a titleholder with AGS reviewing the polish and symmetry
2. A non contact scan
3. PGS software analysis.

If the polish and symmetry grading was negligently, improperly or deceptively done, AGS does have control over a violating member. When this is done by someone not qualifieid, ( ie. Rregistered Jeweler w GIA -GG - CG, CGA or ICGA ) or NOT an AGS member they have little control other than to not renew the yearly license agreement for the PGS.

Unlike some trade associations, membership in AGS is not granted just for writing a check.

Rockdoc






AGS members
 

JohnQuixote

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
5,212
Date: 9/15/2006 3:19:24 PM
Author: Regular Guy

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.
Hey Ira, if I gave the impression that we don’t do the analysis I undersold our team.

We go through the rigors. We know what grades they will receive from the lab before sending and more. We put up certain info, but what is put up for shoppers doesn’t reflect all of the scrutiny taking place on behalf of consumers (see our recent journal article). What we give up-front serves a broad client base. More analytic info is available to shoppers if desired.

I’d say we believe the best “brag about” comes from independent sources; our clients. As for "pride," sure we feel it, but we stop short of presuming to speak for the labs themselves. That doesn’t mean we’re clueless.
37.gif
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
Date: 9/15/2006 5:36:17 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/15/2006 4:52:23 PM
Author: Rhino

I have a question for ya. How do you feel about the fact that AGS members CAN represent a diamond as an AGS ideal with no documentation whatsoever?
Example?
It''s in their nomenclature. I''d have to hunt it down but others here can confirm. An AGS member can represent a diamond as an AGS Ideal Cut if he grades it as such. If we attain membership I would be allowed to do this without using the word "estimate" before AGS cut grade. On a personal note however, even if we do attain membership and as a matter of conscience I would still keep the word "estimate" there regardless of the experience, education and tools we''ve invested.

The rest in bold and in the blue.


Date: 9/15/2006 5:36:17 PM
Author: aljdewey


Date: 9/15/2006 4:52:23 PM
Author: Rhino

In the realm of things as they currently exist on the market I see both labs ultimately benefitting from the education they provide both to people in the trade and to consumers and the availability they make of their products to those of us in the trade who will take the initiative to utilize them. Why? Because the more their name is exposed and spread the more the demand will increase for their product. Even though GIA is the big dog, and EGL is way more popular than AGS ... our friends in AGS are no dummies and I respect how they cooperate as team players with their colleagues at GIA. This is very beneficial for them and to their lab and ultimately to all of us.


Ok, this is where the wheels fall WAY off the bus, Jon. LANDMINE HIT.

DOH
9.gif


I hear this similar argument all the time relative to copyright infringement. The argument goes something like this: ''Oh, that publication will be glad that we helped to provide broader exposure for them by copying their stuff and increasing demand''. Yah, right.

Let me ask you: what was *your own* reaction when people were ripping GOG H&A images and using them to sell their own diamonds (not yours)? Did you feel it was beneficial for you? Did you realize an increased demand for your stones?

LOL... you know my answer to this. Let me clarify this though Alj into the proper context. If a cutting manufacturer or diamond website whom I was familiar with, and consistently represented the same product stone after stone asked my permission and more importantly purchased the rights to use my images then I''d be happy to let them use my images and I''d also enjoy the exposure as well! Just as I have purchased the rights to own and use the official AGS AID Lab equipment that I utilize.

Hey, even better: Would it be okay with you if other vendors start saying on their website for every stone ''Estimated GOG-equivalent H&A quality''?

If they speak with me and go through the proper legalities and I agree they can estimate my grading, and I''ll let them expose my name all they want! Then folks would know where to go for the real McCoy.
1.gif
If anyone I sold my rights to did not follow my procedures and they''re not doing it correctly and fairly guess who''ll pull the
plug?
11.gif
AGS reserves the right to withdraw it''s licence from anyone if they see it being abused.


I have to be honest; in my opinion, it''s a lame rationalization. If you honestly want to benefit AGS, then become a member and pay membership dues to them. Then you won''t just think or assume you''re benefitting/supporting them; you''ll *know* you are. (And, then you too can use the AGS PGS software and have the ethical green light to assign a predictive grade....bonus!)

I''m already on that.
2.gif
In case you haven''t caught it in this thread, I already do own and use the AGS PGS software. I also included that in our new disclaimer explaining how we arrive at our estimates. On a personal note, I do support the work of AGS and suppliers who submit their stones to AGS Alj. When we contact new suppliers my first question to them is do you carry AGS graded diamonds. I myself, when having stones recut or purchased without lab reports, will oftentimes send my stones to them and some to GIA. Sincerely, I hold all the people I have come in contact with at AGS in the highest esteeem. During this entire time, while not a member their team has been extremely supportive and helpful while I was researching their cut grading system and have been tremendous in helping with some of our articles and tutorials. I feel indebted and do look forward to being more of a support to their oustanding team.


It''s outlandish to really think it''s beneficial for AGS to use their name to hawk stones graded by a competing lab while paying that other lab (GIA) the grading report revenue! But, if that''s your argument, maybe your competitors can take a page from that book. Maybe some of the smaller, less well known vendors (yanno, with lesser name recognition as you feel AGS isuffers from) will start putting ''estimated to be GOG-worthy'' designations on all their stones.
9.gif


LOL.... I''d be honored! I''ll show them exactly where to sign too!
3.gif
If we did we may get too busy and need more help. Need another job? Your great with words!
1.gif
Kindest regards,
 

RockDoc

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
2,509
RE: Ownership of PGS

I'm already on that. In case you haven't caught it in this thread, I already do own and use the AGS PGS software. I also included that in our new disclaimer explaining how we arrive at our estimates.


I think you need to read over the PGS license agreement, Jon. None of us has ownership of it. The program is leased ( thus it is and remains the property of AGS/ AGSLAB/ AGS AID).

Even though they sold it, you should consider you are not a CG/GG/ CGA etc. While you may feel qualified to do the polish and symmetry inspections, some may not feel you are if you do not possess the credentials.

You NEED to finish your educational stuff and be tested. As you know I've encouraged you to do this for years. I know how time consuming it is, and know you're very busy, with store family etc, but you really need to finish this stuff up.

Rockdoc

PS. Although he's been very "quiet" about it. the readers here should and congratulate Neil Beaty on becoming an AGS member and qualifying as a New ICGA.

When I complete my firm requirements and the APPA courses, I would let everyone know. It is an accomplishment that took him several years to complete. I hope the "peanut gallery" here would offer their congratulations on a job very well done.

So let's hear it for Neil !!!!!!!!!!!
36.gif
36.gif
36.gif
 

JohnQuixote

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
5,212
Date: 9/15/2006 5:41:10 PM
Author: aljdewey



Date: 9/15/2006 5:34:22 PM
Author: Rhino
I appreciate your candidness and the dialogue Alj. I will think more intently on this. Upon more input I will review the responses with my staff and make a final determination. At this point in time I don't see harm in offering an honest estimation/prediction as JohnQ feels the same as I do about this but I do agree that it should not be hidden on a back page somewhere and should be up there and up front if I'm going to list it. We will always make every effort to listen to consumer input (such as yours and the regs here on PS) and change as necessary.
He does? I think you misread.

But I don't want to speak for John, so let's ask him.

John, do you agree with Jon that there's no harm in offering an honest estimation/prediction about how a grading lab would grade a stone.......for every stone, in writing, on a customer-facing webpage, even with a disclaimer? Was that what you meant?
Qualified yes to the first part of the sentence, qualified no to the second, but don’t go putting me and Rhino in a ring. I’ve seen him in boxing gloves and he looks dangerous.
23.gif


I’m going to answer Rhino’s questions, which might ‘splain mo better.
 

diamondseeker2006

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
58,547
Just curious...does this mean that all the usual PriceScope appraisers are AGS members? If we follow the logic that only an AGS member can confirm that a stone is indeed an AGS0, then we should only use appraisers that are AGS members or else their opinion of the stone''s cut grade is totally worthless. Maybe they are all AGS members...I haven''t looked at their sites.
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Date: 9/15/2006 5:02:05 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 9/15/2006 4:37:19 PM
Author: aljdewey


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

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.
This is where I disagree.

It''s one thing to imply that a stone is well-cut...but there is a difference between the words ''cut'' and ''grade''.

''Cut'' in the broad sense means arrangement of facets....''grade'' implies having achieved a standard. Just as saying ''term paper'' suggests a written report of indeterminate quality (generic), and saying ''A+ paper'' implies a written report that would score 98-100 on a grading scale (lab specific).

Saying a ''Mr. Thompson A+-paper'' suggests that Mr. Thompson would bestow a score of 98-100 on a paper.
To relate this to the topic at hand. Say an apprentice of Mr. Thompson grades a paper. This apprentice has studied thousands of term papers Mr. Thompson has already graded and even utilizes the same identical equipment Mr. Thompson employs in his grading procedures (thesaurus, dictionary, etc.).

Are you saying it would be unfair of Mr. Thompson''s apprentice to say ''Based on my knowledge and experience I would estimate Mr. Thompson''s grade to be such and such?''
Yes, it would be unfair to say that IF

1) making that claim gives the impression (intentional or not) that your *estimate* is materially as weighty or acclaimed as Mr. Thompson actually giving the grade himself
2) if, while making that claim, you were selling term papers to potential students for their use.

This particular example doesn''t translate well, though, so let me offer another.

When you go to get an x-ray done at the hospital, the radiology tech performing the x-ray (who''s been doing this for 15 years) has likely seen a million similiar films herself. If she were allowed to offer her interpretation of your films, it''s probable that her findings would EXACTLY agree with the doctor''s findings. She''s worked for him for 15 years, so she knows him well enough to know he''s going to offer the same findings.

BUT, the medical practice doesn''t allow her to do that because she doesn''t carry the title; she''s not a doctor. She may have all the skills, all the tools, and all the experience to give the proper diagnosis, but only a doctor is allowed to offer a diagnosis.

So touchy is that situation ethically that she cannot even tell you what she thinks with a disclaimer of "well, I''m not a doctor, so you cannot interpret my comments as any kind of meaningful reading" (akin to your disclaimer) and then proceed to *estimate* what she thinks the films say.....and that''s verbal. She certainly cannot write down what she interprets the results to be and put it on hospital letterhead and write "estimated" on it.

(Now, before the literalists in the crowd begin hollering that reading an x-ray isn''t the same/as important/as whatever as grading a diamond......yes, I''m already aware of that. I know that a diamond grading report isn''t as intrinsic as medical advice, thanks.
1.gif
I''m using the analogy to make a point, nothing more.)

That point is: the technician has all the tools, skill, and experience to arrive at the same diagnosis, but she cannot offer a diagnosis at all, nevermind as an estimate of what the doctor would offer. Until she becomes a doctor, she can''t offer it. Similarly, you may have all the skills, tools, and experience to arrive at the same grading that AGS would proffer, but you are not a grading lab. As such, you should not offer even an estimate of what an individual lab would likely assign as a grade.
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Rhino: It''s in their nomenclature. I''d have to hunt it down but others here can confirm. An AGS member can represent a diamond as an AGS Ideal Cut if he grades it as such. If we attain membership I would be allowed to do this without using the word ''estimate'' before AGS cut grade.

Fine....then obtain membership, Jon, and there''s no argument/resistance...... because you''re then meeting the conditions specified to offer an "AGS" position......you''d be an AGS member using the specified PGS tools. But until you''re a member, you don''t meet the criteria and until then, what you''re doing is out of bounds (in my opinion).

You''re assuming that absent those conditions, it''s ok (allowed) to offer an ''estimated or unofficial'' position, and that''s a poor assumption. Unless their nomenclature also says "if you do not satisfy this criteria, you may represent an ''estimated'' AGS Ideal Cut", then you can''t do it.......ethically.


Rhino: LOL... you know my answer to this. Let me clarify this though Alj into the proper context. If a cutting manufacturer or diamond website whom I was familiar with, and consistently represented the same product stone after stone asked my permission and more importantly purchased the rights to use my images then I''d be happy to let them use my images and I''d also enjoy the exposure as well! Just as I have purchased the rights to own and use the official AGS AID Lab equipment that I utilize.

Rhino, you''re making a common mistake, an argument I hear often. It goes something like this: "Well, I paid for the magazine, so I can do whatever I want with it since I paid for it."

No, you can''t. You purchased the right to *that* copy....you didn''t purchase the rights to make subsequent copies without additional payment.
When you go to Staples tonight and purchase Windows software for your computer, it comes with "terms of use" that you must adhere to. It may grant you the right to make a back-up copy, but it doesn''t grant you the right to install that software on 20 other machines without paying additional fees.

You''ve said you own and use the PGS software....which isn''t the same as saying you''ve purchased it. However, presuming you did for the sake of argument, what you purchased is the right to own and use (meaning run) it for your own edification.....but you haven''t purchased the right to represent the results from that software as an estimate grade for non-AGS stones.

Rhino: If they speak with me and go through the proper legalities and I agree they can estimate my grading, and I''ll let them expose my name all they want! ..... If anyone I sold my rights to did not follow my procedures and they''re not doing it correctly and fairly guess who''ll pull the plug? AGS reserves the right to withdraw it''s licence from anyone if they see it being abused.

EXACTLY. Have you obtained permission from AGS to use your PGS software for the purpose of representing estimated AGS cut grades on your website for non-AGS stones? How about for stones that carry grading reports from competing labs i.e. GIA? If you have done this, then you are within every reasonable boundary, ethics and otherwise. BUT, if you haven''t, you''re not.

As far as I can see from the nomenclature, AGS has stipulated that AGS members can use the PGS software to assign an AGS cut grade. Those are the procedures (conditions) for doing this. If you own the PGS software, you satisfy one of those two criteria. You don''t satisfy both.

Rhino: AGS reserves the right to withdraw it''s licence from anyone if they see it being abused.

Yes, they do.....and that likely means that they could very well withdraw its license from you if they choose to. Would you really want to put them in that position as a professional in the trade, or would you think it better to be a stand-up vendor and not push the envelope and risk alienating your position with that lab?

Rhino: I''m already on that. In case you haven''t caught it in this thread, I already do own and use the AGS PGS software.

Yep, I caught that you "have" it; you didn''t actually say you purchased it, so I can''t leap to the conclusion that your dollars for it supported AGS. Did you purchase it? If so, then you are supporting them through software revenue, but you didn''t purchase the right to use the software for any use other than the specified use(s) granted by AGS.

It''s great that you''ve sent stones to them, but that (having utilized/paid for grading reports from them) doesn''t have any relevance to how you use their software. Going back to the Microsoft software analogy, the fact that you''d paid them for some copies of their operating systems doesn''t entitle you to take liberties with other products they may offer that you haven''t paid for.

Rhino: LOL.... I''d be honored! I''ll show them exactly where to sign too! If we did we may get too busy and need more help. Need another job? Your great with words!

No, no...nothing to sign. No revenues forthcoming to you. They aren''t going to get your permission or ask if it''s ok; they are going to assume that it''s ok with you (since it''s only estimated, yanno) without signing anything/paying anything, just as you''re doing.
2.gif
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Date: 9/15/2006 6:46:24 PM
Author: RockDoc


I think you need to read over the PGS license agreement, Jon. None of us has ownership of it. The program is leased ( thus it is and remains the property of AGS/ AGSLAB/ AGS AID).

Even though they sold it, you should consider you are not a CG/GG/ CGA etc. While you may feel qualified to do the polish and symmetry inspections, some may not feel you are if you do not possess the credentials.

You NEED to finish your educational stuff and be tested. As you know I''ve encouraged you to do this for years. I know how time consuming it is, and know you''re very busy, with store family etc, but you really need to finish this stuff up.
Rock''s WAY right on this Jon....you need to be crystal clear as to the terms of the license agreement.

And, to his point about not being credentialled......again, it doesn''t mean you don''t possess the skills. It means the lab (whose potential grading opinion your estimating) may not feel you''re qualified because of lack of credentials.

Credentials make a difference in some instances. My friend who went to law school and passed the bar is uber-qualified to practice law, but until she gets a license in the state of PA, she cannot practice there. The fact that she isn''t licensed there doesn''t diminish her knowledge or abilities in any way, but it means she cannot lawfully practice there.
1.gif
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Date: 9/15/2006 6:53:35 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Just curious...does this mean that all the usual PriceScope appraisers are AGS members? If we follow the logic that only an AGS member can confirm that a stone is indeed an AGS0, then we should only use appraisers that are AGS members or else their opinion of the stone's cut grade is totally worthless. Maybe they are all AGS members...I haven't looked at their sites.
That's not the role of most independent appraisers. They don't "confirm" anything about the properties of the stone.

An appraiser offers you *his* expert opinion about the characteristics of the stone. He gives you his opinion regarding color, make, clarity, and a bunch of other things. His professional opinions on one or more of the elements may actually differ from those of the grading report. He reports what measurements *he* arrives at when he uses lab machinery to measure the stone. The only thing (I believe) that he can 'confirm' is if the stone he's appraising is the same one represented by the grading report (i.e. does it match, is this the right diamond)....as well as confirm the presence of any inscriptions that may be on the stone.

If a stone comes with an AGS0 grading report, that report IS the confirmation that AGS has graded it as AGS0.
9.gif
Therefore, an (independent) appraiser doesn't need to assign an AGS grade.....AGS itself already has, and the grading report reflects that result.

If the stone you bring to him has no grading report, he still reports all the information noted above, and he offers his opinion on the make of the stone. It would surprise me to hear that an appraiser who isn't a member of AGS had provided a written appraisal containing any representations or estimations relative to AGS cut grade.
 

canuk-gal

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
25,649
Date: 9/15/2006 7:35:49 PM
Author: aljdewey



That point is: the technician has all the tools, skill, and experience to arrive at the same diagnosis, but she cannot offer a diagnosis at all, nevermind as an estimate of what the doctor would offer. Until she becomes a doctor, she can't offer it. Similarly, you may have all the skills, tools, and experience to arrive at the same grading that AGS would proffer, but you are not a grading lab. As such, you should not offer even an estimate of what an individual lab would likely assign as a grade.
HI Alj:


I have edited the replies of the comment you made to Rhino, not b/c I wish to omit any important information (those who wish to read intently can hopefully scroll back), but for the sake of brevity. But I wanted clarification on your comment, given what John had stated earlier in reply to Ira as follows:

"We go through the rigors. We know what grades they will receive from the lab before sending and more.
We put up certain info, but what is put up for shoppers doesn’t reflect all of the scrutiny taking place on behalf of consumers (see our recent journal article). What we give up-front serves a broad client base. More analytic info is available to shoppers if desired." John

So if WF is not a lab, but "knows what grades they wiill receive from labs", then how is this "putting up cetain info" different than if GOG offers the same kind of pre-lab "opinions" regarding their stones? Would not your comment on "not offering an estimation of what a lab would assign" apply to WF as well? Am missing something here?

cheers--Sharon
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Date: 9/15/2006 8:56:52 PM
Author: canuk-gal

I have edited the replies of the comment you made to Rhino, not b/c I wish to omit any important information (those who wish to read intently can hopefully scroll back), but for the sake of brevity. But I wanted clarification on your comment, given what John had stated earlier in reply to Ira as follows:

''We go through the rigors. We know what grades they will receive from the lab before sending and more.
We put up certain info, but what is put up for shoppers doesn’t reflect all of the scrutiny taking place on behalf of consumers (see our recent journal article). What we give up-front serves a broad client base. More analytic info is available to shoppers if desired.'' John

So if WF is not a lab, but ''knows what grades they wiill receive from labs'', then how is this ''putting up cetain info'' different than if GOG offers the same kind of pre-lab ''opinions'' regarding their stones? Would not your comment on ''not offering an estimation of what a lab would assign'' apply to WF as well? Am missing something here?
Great question....and yes, I think you''re missing something.

I''m not sure in what context John Q''s comment were made, so I can''t speak to his intent. I have, though, been on the waiting end of stones from WF. Brian was on the hunt for my halo pendant stone during one of his trips, and I was beyond impatient. I kept saying "I don''t see it, I don''t see it." Lesley told me the page wouldn''t be turned on until they heard from the lab.

So, I can tell you that they don''t "turn on" the stone''s page on their website until they get an initial results report from the lab.

This report tells the vendor "here''s the grade of the stone". After that happens, the stone gets inscribed with branding/report numbers and the grading report is printed onto the fancy grading report paper that we get when we buy the stone. During the wait for the stone/actual grading report to be shipped to them, WF finishes entering the data we see and then turns the page on so we can see it.

So....by the time you see a stone on WF''s website, WF *has* received grading results from the lab, and what''s listed isn''t an estimation.

In the GOG scenario, he isn''t getting a "pre-lab opinion"....he isn''t submitting those stones for grading to the lab and has no intent of doing so. He''s instead giving his estimation of what he thinks that lab would assign as a grade for each stone as a substitute for actual grade results. (And because of this, there is also no check/balance if he happens to be human and make an error. No real grading report will correct an innocent mistake.)

Because they aren''t the same instance....no, my comments wouldn''t apply in the WF scenario....different animal.
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Date: 9/15/2006 8:56:52 PM
Author: canuk-gal

Would not your comment on ''not offering an estimation of what a lab would assign''
Also, it''s really important to know that, taken out of context, this comment doesn''t have the same impact.

When I said it, it was in the context of offering the estimation "as a substitute for" or "taking the place of an actual grading report".

But, devil''s advocate for a moment (because y''all know I''m a devil''s advocate kinda person).........what if ABC vendor did post information estimating a given lab''s projected cut results prior to sending a stone to that lab? Would the comment above apply to him, too? Not in the practical sense.

In that hypothetical instance, ABC Vendor is putting the estimation up as a temporary placeholder, and if the grading report were to come back differently, it would be corrected pre-sale. In GOG''s instance, the estimation isn''t a temporary placeholder; it''s a substitute.

What ABC is doing is similar to getting a temporary driver''s license; it serves as a placeholder until the actual final license is printed. In GOG''s scenario, it''s like you filling out your name, height, weight, address, eye color, etc. onto a form and gluing a picture to the page with no intent of procuring the "official" license.
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,170
Date: 9/15/2006 6:46:24 PM
Author: RockDoc

PS. Although he''s been very ''quiet'' about it. the readers here should and congratulate Neil Beaty on becoming an AGS member and qualifying as a New ICGA.

When I complete mine firm requirements and the APPA courses, I would let everyone know. It is an accomplishment that took him several years to complete. I hope the ''peanut gallery'' here would offer their congratulations on a job very well done.

So let''s here it for Neil !!!!!!!!!!!
36.gif
36.gif
36.gif

OH....almost forgot!

YAY, Neil! That''s really, REALLY impressive. I''m continually amazed by the ongoing "raising of the bar" in credentials that you folks bring to Pricescope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top