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

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/15/2006 9:55:39 PM
Author: aljdewey

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.

Alj, that isn''t exactly a fair representation. The GOG stone HAS been graded by one lab or the other. The actual GIA or AGS cert is posted on the site, along with a Helium scan and usually others as well. You make it sound like he has these ungraded stones with no info that he just eyeballs and says, "Oh yeah, I think this one looks ideal!"

But I think he has plenty of valid scientific info to give a reasonable estimate of the other labs grade. It''s just an estimate, not a guarantee.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/15/2006 8:56:52 PM
Author: canuk-gal

JohnQuixote wrote:

'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

Sharon wrote:

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

I caused you to miss it Sharon. I was trying to be succinct and wasn't clear enough.

The sentences were different thoughts completely. 'We put up certain info' did not refer to data going up before we get indications back from the lab. We would not do this. It meant we have 3D scans, optical symmetry judgments, brillianteering judgments, etc., that don't ever go up.

We may do ideal-scope images, sarin scans and photos and create the diamond page while the stone is at the lab - but they never go 'live' until we get the emailed pre-report back and can publish all official grades decisively.

That was a pretty accurate recap by Aljdewey. I think she understands the procedure a little too well (cue the silenced black helicopters).

 

[JohnQuixote]

Rhino - First of all, I don’t know if everyone understands how easy it ISN’T to make website changes quickly, but I took note of how fast you adjusted the comparison table when you were persuaded by opinions expressed here.

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

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?

I think it is peripheral, as the majority of consumers will still expect official documentation from the lab. Now if I’m somehow wrong about that ask for my opinion again later.

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

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,

I think we’ll have to disagree, but I don’t want to leave it at that. I considered this for a while today.

GOG is a far cry from a store relying on basic GIA or AGS value-add to sell a diamond. You have much more credibility. In fact, not only can you verify a grade, you can estimate what it will be in either lab. A number of us here are capable of publishing such estimates too. However, just because we can do something doesn’t mean we always do.

I understand the temptation: There’s not a ‘Consumer Reports’ for diamonds. In large part they’re a mystery. Nervous buyers seek validation. Shoppers WANT correlations they can understand and take comfort in. The Rhinoceros has always been responsive to the buyer’s need for validation, and has even made a specialty of the DOCD consumer’s need for hyper-validation.

Over the years you’ve developed opinions on different technologies used in your sales efforts and put them on your site. In this sense you have created your own, customized set of ‘consumer reports’ to provide validation.

In your defense, it sounds like you just want to continue in this vein and demonstrate your technical ability to estimate a lab grade - even publish it. I know this may seem to be your logical next step, but be aware it’s a step in a philosophical direction some won’t agree with.

In the little picture this is a matter of protocol: Aljdewey compared it to a university degree: Even if I know my student will pass all exams from Cornell, I'm not comfortable advertising her in writing as a Cornell graduate unless and until she actually takes the tests and receives the paper. Verbally I can predict her success all day, but the authentic document is reserved for Cornell to publish.

In the big picture, it could further polarize the B&M versus internet environment. Some retailers in the ‘outside world’ are angry about our market share already. They look for any reason to denounce the ‘Pricescope Boys’ (you were there). A club of PS vendors publishing phantom grades for labs the diamonds never saw could be an arrow in their ‘hate the internet’ quiver. One vendor doing it may not constitute a breach of ethical practices, but I bet 12 vendors doing it would get some attention.

In the biggest picture, it has potential to add another confusing element to our industry, and I think we’re already burdened with trying to overcome the inherent mistrust that exists in our trade. I was at a seminar with Jim Shigley, Al Gilbertson, Peter Yantzer and Richard Drucker last weekend. When they were asked “What is the biggest issue in the industry today?’ all 4 of them identified consumer confidence and ethics issues.

Alj wrote something else I agree with: You don’t really need this. GOG enjoys a strong rep and you don’t need ‘up-front dual lab certification.’ Your brand is strong. That could be why some people are reacting with surprise; it’s not really necessary and it breaks normally-respected conventions. We’re used to seeing you ‘up the ante.’ Is this that?

If you continue you may take some heat but (again, in your defense) whether others agree with your practices is not as important as you being consistent with them. So, if you’re willing to take that heat and it works for you, do it. My 2 cents are just to encourage you to remember the mantra that “just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should” …and take it from there.

You’re plenty clever and will make the right decision for GOG.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/15/2006 10:39:53 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

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.

Alj, that isn't exactly a fair representation. The GOG stone HAS been graded by one lab or the other. The actual GIA or AGS cert is posted on the site, along with a Helium scan and usually others as well. You make it sound like he has these ungraded stones with no info that he just eyeballs and says, 'Oh yeah, I think this one looks ideal!'

But I think he has plenty of valid scientific info to give a reasonable estimate of the other labs grade. It's just an estimate, not a guarantee.

DS, you're replying to one comment (that addressed a specific HYPOTHETICAL scenario) and applying it incorrectly.

If you go back and follow this thread as a whole from the beginning (please do this), you'll see I made no unfair representation that even remotely resembles what you've inferred above.

For clarification:

I never said he wasn't getting *any* grading report....and in fact, I said just the opposite earlier in this thread! In fact, if you go look at the earlier part of the thread (please), you'll see that I've already commented more than once along the vein of 'why do you need to represent any project grade from an lab you won't use when you already have a perfectly reputable grading lab report for that stone from another lab?'

Given that I've already acknowledged he HAS a valid lab report from a DIFFERENT lab, I don't see how you interpret that to mean "no info" as in NO grading report.

. I didn't make any unfair representation.

The comment you're referring to above was relative to Sharon's query only. She wondered if I'd feel the same if WF (or any vendor) was giving estimates (let's say for AGS cut grade) IN ADVANCE of getting (which implies they ARE getting) actual lab reports FROM AGS.

In that specific query only, my comment meant "it's not the same thing. One vendor is estimating AGS results until they obtain ACTUAL AGS results. The other is estimating AGS results with no intent of getting ACTUAL AGS results.

I've said right along from the beginning of this thread that I'm speaking to the practice of estimating a lab's cut grade (no matter which lab it is, AGS or GIA or whoever) when you aren't going to get an ACTUAL grade from the lab you are estimating about. Obviously, a vendor wouldn't need to estimate about the other report....he has it in hand.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/15/2006 10:41:14 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

That was a pretty accurate recap by Aljdewey. I think she understands the procedure a little too well (cue the silenced black helicopters).

Believe me....NOT because I wanted to! It felt like it was taking FOREVER for Brian to find my stone......which it really wasn''t. It takes more than a minute or two to source a stone when you have to come up with EXACTLY a J, SI2 in the .75 range with all the freak-o number preferences I wanted. (I''m such a pill).

It didn''t honestly take forever, but it''s the "watched pot never boiling thing" or the "waiting for proposal" thing......it FEELS like a lifetime waiting! SOB - drama!

I was beyond psyched when Lesley said "we finally found one!"....and for that good deed of telling me they had it, her ''reward'' was my constant barrage of "is it SOUP YET? is it SOUP YET? calls.

(When they say no good deed goes unpunished, believe it! Here she was trying to help me feel like it was finally coming together, and her reward was MORE impatience from me because now I knew it was getting close to reality. Poor Lesley couldn''t win!

)

So, while I kept asking NOW?....NOW?.....NOW?, she patiently explained that you had to wait for the inscription on my stone to occur and how long it takes from then to come in. I was pressing to see the data (because I wanted to see all the numbers), and that''s when I learned you guys don''t turn the page on until you get the initial report from the lab.

In hindsight, I was just SO revved about it and anxious to get it done because it was a 40th birthday celebration piece, and I wanted to have it in time. Bet you guys are glad I won''t be turning 40 again anytime soon, huh?

 

[Regular Guy]

Has anyone ever come up with an Al density scale?

(Number of posts from aljdewey per thread)

This must score a 7.5

(with appreciation)...

 

[RockDoc]

Gee, Alj

You''ve been writing some very pertinent and well thought out responses..

Sharon - canuk gal

You too, have also analyzed this situation well.


The real concern is not with those attempting to do things as well as they can, but rather with those that aren''t.

Change will happen to streamline what sellers should or shouldn''t do. It will just take some time. There are a lot of stragglers who will eventually get the idea, but they''ll probably be kicking and screaming along the way.

Years ago, some retailers took the opinion that GIA grading reports were only for the trade and should not be given to consumers. It''s taken about 20 years to happen that consumers should be supplied independent grading reports, which is now very common. But even 20 years later there are still some retailers, that advise consumers that it isn''t needed.

A small group of us ( which is growing ) have tried for years to convince sellers that they can''t write an appraisal for something they sold (they can write a document stating the cost of replacement in their store). However, it is still practiced.

RE: As for using ONLY an AGS member for appraisals and how many there are

Probably the best response without sounding to intentionally self-serving, is to comment that the selection of who you want to appraise your item, should rest with the person wanting it done. Appraisers come in all "shapes and sizes", have varying gemological equipment, education and experience.

The AGS ICGA program has very few qualified appraisers. So to answer the question are PS members all AGS members, I''d say the percentage is very small.

There are some who have very fine credentials with other appraisal societies such as ASA/ ISA being probably requiring the most from their members.

In this regard I''d suggest what I''ve written so many times before "Appraise the Appraiser". Credentials make it a little easier for the consumer to choose, but in the end it should be the consumer''s choice

Rockdoc

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/16/2006 12:17:04 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Has anyone ever come up with an Al density scale?

Ira.....are you calling me dense?

(I know you''re not.....I''m just kidding!)

 

[Ellen]

I have a question for Rhino.

Ira asked this: Do some diamonds as good as ones that get AGS0 get sent to GIA anyway

You said absolutely.

My question is, why didn''t/wouldn''t they send it to AGS? If I understand correctly, that would not only bring them the AGS0 title (which at least on here seems the only worthy one by some, or many?), but also more money for the stone.

Curious...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/16/2006 8:59:14 AM
Author: Ellen
I have a question for Rhino.

Ira asked this: Do some diamonds as good as ones that get AGS0 get sent to GIA anyway

You said absolutely.

My question is, why didn''t/wouldn''t they send it to AGS? If I understand correctly, that would not only bring them the AGS0 title (which at least on here seems the only worthy one by some, or many?), but also more money for the stone.

Curious...

Ellen if I may; some cutters get 1 in 50 stones that could be AGS0 accidentally rather than by design. Uless they have state of the art equipment (scanners, microscopes for polish and they may never know it was possible - or they may not bother even having an account with AGS because they have so few stones.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/16/2006 8:59:14 AM
Author: Ellen
I have a question for Rhino.

Ira asked this: Do some diamonds as good as ones that get AGS0 get sent to GIA anyway

You said absolutely.

My question is, why didn''t/wouldn''t they send it to AGS? If I understand correctly, that would not only bring them the AGS0 title (which at least on here seems the only worthy one by some, or many?), but also more money for the stone.

Curious...

tradition
the main cutter of gog classics will not use AGS because they have always used GIA.
Yea I asked :}
Another cutter who cuts them for him does use AGS and the basic proportion set has no problem getting ags0.
The bottom line on this whole mess its up to AGS how their software and grade is used and if they say he can do it then thats that.
They come back and say no then thats that 2.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/16/2006 9:13:46 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/16/2006 8:59:14 AM
Author: Ellen
I have a question for Rhino.

Ira asked this: Do some diamonds as good as ones that get AGS0 get sent to GIA anyway

You said absolutely.

My question is, why didn''t/wouldn''t they send it to AGS? If I understand correctly, that would not only bring them the AGS0 title (which at least on here seems the only worthy one by some, or many?), but also more money for the stone.

Curious...

tradition
the main cutter of gog classics will not use AGS because they have always used GIA.
Yea I asked :}
Another cutter who cuts them for him does use AGS and the basic proportion set has no problem getting ags0.
The bottom line on this whole mess its up to AGS how their software and grade is used and if they say he can do it then thats that.
They come back and say no then thats that 2.

That must apply to mine. A card enclosed with the papers says it is cut by Tolkowsky. Then it says within the text: "Every Towlkowsky stone is: Ideal Cut, Hearts and Arrows, GIA certified, Excellent polish and Symmetry." So it appears they send all their diamonds to GIA. But my stone had much tighter numbers than I see on some AGS0 stones, which is part of the reason I chose it!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/16/2006 9:03:08 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 9/16/2006 8:59:14 AM
Author: Ellen
I have a question for Rhino.

Ira asked this: Do some diamonds as good as ones that get AGS0 get sent to GIA anyway

You said absolutely.

My question is, why didn''t/wouldn''t they send it to AGS? If I understand correctly, that would not only bring them the AGS0 title (which at least on here seems the only worthy one by some, or many?), but also more money for the stone.

Curious...

Ellen if I may; some cutters get 1 in 50 stones that could be AGS0 accidentally rather than by design. Uless they have state of the art equipment (scanners, microscopes for polish and they may never know it was possible - or they may not bother even having an account with AGS because they have so few stones.

not in this case. The cutter targets and cuts almost all super-ideals.

 

[Ellen]

Thanks Gary and strm.

 

[Rhino]

Busy day for me here (Saturday) but wanted to answer your question Ellen. I have more thoughts/responses to share but time may not allow till later some time.

Date: 9/16/2006 8:59:14 AM
Author: Ellen
I have a question for Rhino.

Ira asked this: Do some diamonds as good as ones that get AGS0 get sent to GIA anyway

You said absolutely.

My question is, why didn''t/wouldn''t they send it to AGS? If I understand correctly, that would not only bring them the AGS0 title (which at least on here seems the only worthy one by some, or many?), but also more money for the stone.

Curious...

There are few factories in the world we do business with regarding volume that can cut the product we seek. I think I can count them all on less than 2 hands. Some of our major factories uses GIA as their lab of choice so when the stones come to us they are already GIA Graded, all triple Ex H&A. Some of our other factories primarily uses AGS and all their goods are cut purposely for AGS Ideal H&A. I just conducted an advance search on our site for only stones (all shapes) having GIA Reports vs AGS Reports. At this moment there are 219 with GIA Reports and 186 with AGS Reports (if you click on "advanced search" you have alot of different search criteria you can use, I invoked "Lab Report" to get these results).

Considering the ratio of GIA stones to AGS stones on the market as a *whole* (and also taking into account this is including fancies we list) this is a pretty even ratio. Actually when I refine this search for rounds only there are 78 GIA stones vs 83 AGS stones. More AGS than GIA, yet still very close.

In short though ... quite frankly it doesn''t matter to me which lab it comes from as long as it is either of these 2. I like to let a diamond stand or fall on its own merits regardless of the lab. Who knows ... we may feature stones from more labs down the road. Only time will tell. Both of these, at this time are what I consider the most conservative out there and I will always continue to support both.

Hope that helps.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/16/2006 9:13:46 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/16/2006 8:59:14 AM
Author: Ellen
I have a question for Rhino.

Ira asked this: Do some diamonds as good as ones that get AGS0 get sent to GIA anyway

You said absolutely.

My question is, why didn''t/wouldn''t they send it to AGS? If I understand correctly, that would not only bring them the AGS0 title (which at least on here seems the only worthy one by some, or many?), but also more money for the stone.

Curious...

tradition
the main cutter of gog classics will not use AGS because they have always used GIA.
Yea I asked :}
Another cutter who cuts them for him does use AGS and the basic proportion set has no problem getting ags0.
The bottom line on this whole mess its up to AGS how their software and grade is used and if they say he can do it then thats that.
They come back and say no then thats that 2.

Good summation strm. AGS knows I''m a team player and whatever rules they lay out I''m happy to abide by.

From a business perspective (and lets not forget AGSL is a business), if indeed they are looking to increase revenue of their products they will encourage proper and professional use of their products and if I were them, have as much exposure of their product as possible. If they allow responsible professional''s certain freedoms with the product, and used in accord with their set rules and procedures, IMO it only helps to get their name more exposed resulting in more revenue for them. I understand the points raised by all here, but I''m thinking from a marketing/business perspective too. My .02c

Peace,

 

[Ellen]

Rhino, thanks for answering. I''m on my way out for the rest of the day, so won''t even be checking back in til tomorrow. Would like to hear your other thoughts, but no rush.

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 9/15/2006 10:41:14 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 9/15/2006 8:56:52 PM
Author: canuk-gal

John wrote:
I caused you to miss it Sharon. I was trying to be succinct and wasn''t clear enough.

The sentences were different thoughts completely. ''We put up certain info'' did not refer to data going up before we get indications back from the lab. We would not do this. It meant we have 3D scans, optical symmetry judgments, brillianteering judgments, etc., that don''t ever go up.

We may do ideal-scope images, sarin scans and photos and create the diamond page while the stone is at the lab - but they never go ''live'' until we get the emailed pre-report back and can publish all official grades decisively.

That was a pretty accurate recap by Aljdewey. I think she understands the procedure a little too well (cue the silenced black helicopters).

Alj wrote:
Great question....and yes, I think you''re missing something.
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.
_____________________

Hello John and Alj:

Thank you both very much for your timely replies; and please do not suppose my tardiness with the same means anything more than a very busy day!

After reading both replies and the remainder of the thread, I now have a much better understanding of the argument and therefore no longer feel as though I am "missing something"; thank you for providng the clarification needed. I now see the entire forest.

cheers--Sharon

 

[denverappraiser]

i•de•al (n.)
A conception of something in its absolute perfection.

1. One that is regarded as a standard or model of perfection or excellence.
2. An ultimate object of endeavor; a goal.
3. An honorable or worthy principle or aim.

There are many crossed topics going on in this thread and it makes it a little hard to follow. Above is a standard English definition of ‘ideal’. I agree with Alj that, for many people referring to diamond cutting, it has come to mean approximately the same as ‘pretty good’. I’ll even agree that, for many consumer purposes, this is entirely sufficient. Others take it to mean that there is a standard definition of the most perfect cut and that other configurations are, by definition, inferior. This causes problems. Precise communication is often not the point when folks describe their diamond as ideal and this is fine but there is a long history of dealers who take advantage of this difference in usage and it’s almost never done in the consumer’s best interest. That’s the reason for using a more specific term - a term like AGS-0. This has a clear and precise definition as to what it means. This definition has changed over time and it will undoubtedly continue to do so. Currently, it’s pretty simple - an AGS-0 is a stone graded by AGSL that is reported to be AGS-0. All others are estimates. Unlike the standard GIA scale, the AGS grading scale is copyrighted and non-members are, at least theoretically, forbidden to use it publicly. AGS provides materials, training and equipment to allow their members and others to make these estimates in a sensible and hopefully accurate way but, at the end of the day, it’s not an AGS-0 unless and until AGSL says it is.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[diamondseeker2006]

True, Neil, of course. But all of the best diamonds in the world are not AGS graded, so it is wrong to imply that all other diamonds, not AGS graded, are somehow inferior, right? That is the undercurrent I get from this thread..that all the "best" diamonds are sent to AGS and all others must be inferior. I see this view inferred on various threads on PS. And I do not believe this to be the truth. So is it, or is it not?

 

[Serg]

from Our Poster on IDCC1( Moscow 2004)

"1)All the systems considered above have one thing in common: they don''t use the attribute "ideal".
2)An obvious drawback of the "ideality" concept is that all the "non-ideal" items are penalized, while most people understand that the ideal does not exist.
3)If there is a concept of "ideality" on the market, this conflicts with the concepts of "difference" and "specialty", because all the different and special is non-ideal. So, a negative attitude is cultivated towards differences and specialties.
4)If there is no "ideality" concept, any differences and specialties can be positioned as positive. This point contains a potential for growth and development of the corresponding goods and markets, while the existing "ideality" concept restrains the diamond market.
"

Full text
http://www.gemology.ru/cut/english/conference_posters/7.htm

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 9/17/2006 9:25:10 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
True, Neil, of course. But all of the best diamonds in the world are not AGS graded, so it is wrong to imply that all other diamonds, not AGS graded, are somehow inferior, right? That is the undercurrent I get from this thread..that all the 'best' diamonds are sent to AGS and all others must be inferior. I see this view inferred on various threads on PS. And I do not believe this to be the truth. So is it, or is it not?

Hopefully you've never seen ME imply that. It’s not the lab or the appraiser that makes a beautiful diamond beautiful. That’s the result of a collaborative effort between God and the cutter. AGS-0 is not a standard of beauty, desirability or value. It inculcates several attributes of diamonds that are popular and that many people are interested in but it’s inaccurate to describe this set of attributes as ‘better’. I agree with Sergey, the concept of ideality is ill-founded and often terribly misleading.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thank you, Neil. I totally agree and just wanted that clarified that not all outstanding diamonds are sent to AGS. And no, I have never seen you imply that at all!

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/16/2006 8:59:14 AM
Author: Ellen
I have a question for Rhino.

Ira asked this: Do some diamonds as good as ones that get AGS0 get sent to GIA anyway

You said absolutely.

My question is, why didn''t/wouldn''t they send it to AGS? If I understand correctly, that would not only bring them the AGS0 title (which at least on here seems the only worthy one by some, or many?), but also more money for the stone.

Curious...

I have been watching this interchange with some amusement.. Some comments

1) Not all GIA EX''s would get AGS0''s, as a matter of fact, it is greater than 5 times more likely for any given random stone to get a GIA EX than an AGS 0

2) Not all AGS 0''s would get a GIA EX, because of different paradigms, which has been covered in other threads.. John Q, if you would find the link to the statistics thread if you get a chance..

3) Both organizations have changed their paradigms of the "best"

4) One organization has opened up the "best" bucket so that bucket is best called a barrel

5) I have severe reservations with the overemphasis on the polish issue for overall cut grade, very good polish should not get dinged so much by AGS, GIA''s decision in this case I feel is correct. Polish should not be equally weighted with a;; the other factors, so much more important..

6) Only AGSL can give a AGS grade, and only GIA can give a GIA grade, everything else is an estimate

7) Every seller, bar none, in some fashion, "puffs" or hypes, some outhright lie

My general question is: why would anyone who cuts a fine stone, ever send their stone to GIA, when GIA lumps their goods in with most of us would consider a year go, merely average makes..

It is easy to see why stones are sent to looser graders, whether it be for color, clarity, or cut.. It is all about $$$, and marketing, in this latter case

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/17/2006 9:46:03 AM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 9/17/2006 9:25:10 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
True, Neil, of course. But all of the best diamonds in the world are not AGS graded, so it is wrong to imply that all other diamonds, not AGS graded, are somehow inferior, right? That is the undercurrent I get from this thread..that all the ''best'' diamonds are sent to AGS and all others must be inferior. I see this view inferred on various threads on PS. And I do not believe this to be the truth. So is it, or is it not?

Hopefully you''ve never seen ME imply that. It’s not the lab or the appraiser that makes a beautiful diamond beautiful. That’s the result of a collaborative effort between God and the cutter. AGS-0 is not a standard of beauty, desirability or value. I agree with Sergey, the concept of ideality is ill-founded and often terribly misleading.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Thank you for this post.

I have never seen you imply this. But it is definitely implied, and is increasing over time I''ve noticed. So much so, that I sometimes feel as if my GIA Ex/Ex graded stone is akin to being born on the "wrong side of the tracks". It is beautiful indeed, but will never be accepted by some, as it doesn''t have the "coveted" title of AGSO. I can hear the whispers now, as to, why didn''t it get sent to AGS?

Which is a shame, as some just coming onto this site may very well pass up a beautiful stone, if it''s GIA graded. I have personally seen posters literally told to stay away from them, and I think that''s wrong. Yes, a bit more scrutiny may be needed with a GIA stone because of rounding, but to imply they are ALL inferior is again, just plain wrong, IMO.

*stepping down off soapbox*

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/17/2006 9:07:37 AM
Author: denverappraiser

i•de•al (n.)
A conception of something in its absolute perfection.

1. One that is regarded as a standard or model of perfection or excellence.
2. An ultimate object of endeavor; a goal.
3. An honorable or worthy principle or aim.

There are many crossed topics going on in this thread and it makes it a little hard to follow. Above is a standard English definition of ‘ideal’. I agree with Alj that, for many people referring to diamond cutting, it has come to mean approximately the same as ‘pretty good’. I’ll even agree that, for many consumer purposes, this is entirely sufficient. Others take it to mean that there is a standard definition of the most perfect cut and that other configurations are, by definition, inferior. This causes problems. Precise communication is often not the point when folks describe their diamond as ideal and this is fine but there is a long history of dealers who take advantage of this difference in usage and it’s almost never done in the consumer’s best interest. That’s the reason for using a more specific term - a term like AGS-0. This has a clear and precise definition as to what it means. This definition has changed over time and it will undoubtedly continue to do so. Currently, it’s pretty simple - an AGS-0 is a stone graded by AGSL that is reported to be AGS-0. All others are estimates. Unlike the standard GIA scale, the AGS grading scale is copyrighted and non-members are, at least theoretically, forbidden to use it publicly. AGS provides materials, training and equipment to allow their members and others to make these estimates in a sensible and hopefully accurate way but, at the end of the day, it’s not an AGS-0 unless and until AGSL says it is.

Thanks, Neil. This really sums up many of the conversations going on......

1. There is a generic, consumer understood use of the word ''ideal''.....as Neil points out in the dictionary definition from above.
2. In the diamond trade, the word ''ideal'' has MORE than just a generic, dictionary meaning.
3. Dealers need to be cognizant of the duality of the meaning, and take care not to take advantage of this difference in usage--as Neil points out.
4. As highlighted in pink......can''t say it any better than that!

 

[aljdewey]

Diamondseeker: But all of the best diamonds in the world are not AGS graded, so it is wrong to imply that all other diamonds, not AGS graded, are somehow inferior, right? That is the undercurrent I get from this thread..that all the 'best' diamonds are sent to AGS and all others must be inferior. I see this view inferred on various threads on PS. And I do not believe this to be the truth. So is it, or is it not?

I cannot speak for everyone else, but for my part, my argument is: don't represent a stone as something that it's not, either way.

It happens that people have been pointing to GOG's estimating grades and using the AGS0 as an example, but I feel just as strongly about dealers not representing AGS0 stones with a projected GIA grade, either. I feel it's misleading and skirting the lines of ethically wrong for a dealer to represent (even as an estimate) that a stone qualifies for any kind of pedigree that it hasn't actually earned.

This contention has nothing to do with either lab being "better" than the other. It has to do with implying a benchmark that hasn't been actually proven or earned.

Ellen: But it is definitely implied, and is increasing over time I've noticed. So much so, that I sometimes feel as if my GIA Ex/Ex graded stone is akin to being born on the "wrong side of the tracks". It is beautiful indeed, but will never be accepted by some, as it doesn't have the "coveted" title of AGSO. I can hear the whispers now, as to, why didn't it get sent to AGS?

Which is a shame, as some just coming onto this site may very well pass up a beautiful stone, if it's GIA graded. I have personally seen posters literally told to stay away from them, and I think that's wrong. Yes, a bit more scrutiny may be needed with a GIA stone because of rounding, but to imply they are ALL inferior is again, just plain wrong, IMO.

Again, not speaking for anyone but myself, but I don't at all feel that GIA stones are inferior. I would take Mara's GIA stone in a MINUTE if I were jonesing for a larger stone, and hers is GIA. I'd happily buy a GIA stone IF I could also get an accompanying Sarin report or other measurement.

What I see most commonly is this: If a poster wants a stone that meets AGS0 parameters, and they don't want to make it a life's work project to find it, the most direct way to get it is to limit consideration to AGS0 stones. No brainer.....if you are looking for label-comparable, buying 'the label' is the easiest route. For those who don't mind doing a little extra homework to ask for more information (Sarin, OGI, whatever), there is no reason not to consider GIA stones. For those who don't care if a stone meets AGS0 parameters or not, there's no reason not to consider GIA stones.

Similarly.......for those who want a stone that meets GIA-EX parameters who don't want to make a life's work project to find it, the most direct way to get it is to limit consideration to GIA-ex stones. Again, no brainer. For those who don't mind doing extra homework or for those who don't care if a stone meets GIA-EX parameters, there's no reason not to consider AGS stones.

What I think you pick up on is this: people often say "I don't want to go through tons of time - I just want to find THIS." In those cases, yes, people will say "then stick to AGS" or "then stick to GIA"....depending on the want.

I can understand the inclination to take it personally if you feel someone is dissing your stone, but for my part, that's not the intent. If someone told me they want to limit consideration to 'ideal' stones, I wouldn't tell them to consider 60/60 stones, either.....but that doesn't mean I don't think some 60/60 stones can be absolutely beautiful (as Rod's is). It just means that I think the quickest way to hone in on what that person wants is to start at the place MOST LIKELY to produce what he wants.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Then Alj, we need to do away with the HCA, because it also gives an estimate of GIA or AGS grades. You plug in numbers, and the little X lands in boxes that indicate AGS0 or GIA Ex. The HCA is providing an estimate of that stone''s cut grade by both labs. I see absolutely no difference in this and a vendor indicating from a helium scan and other examination of a stone that it would get an estimated grade of whatever. In fact, the HCA is far less accurate than a vendor doing an analysis with an actual stone in hand.

While you may not personally be aware of what Ellen and I are talking about, it is obvious that some of us do see it. And for the record, I do not have Ellen''s email address and I have never spoken with her about this or any other thing off PS. So I think it is interesting that we both have come to the same conculsions just by hanging out here a lot.

But what I want to add is, I have been to vendor sites that have stones sorted as ideal, premium, very good, etc. And you can look under ideal and see stones that clearly are not. These are the ones I''d be a lot more concerned about. It''s not like Jonathan hides anything about his stones...gosh, the helium scan, magnified photos with inclusions, sarin, grading certificate, etc. are all posted prominently on the webpage for every stone! I''d have a lot more question about how some of the other vendors here are choosing to list stones as "ideal" with little other supporting information.

 

[whatmeworry]

Would any one have problems if a vendor said this GIA Excellent stone scored an AGS0 in light performance when I ran it through AGSL''s PGS software? Or this AGS Ideal stone scored a GIA Excellent using GIA''s Facetware?

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/17/2006 9:30:57 AM
Author: Serg



from Our Poster on IDCC1( Moscow 2004)

''1)All the systems considered above have one thing in common: they don''t use the attribute ''ideal''.
2)An obvious drawback of the ''ideality'' concept is that all the ''non-ideal'' items are penalized, while most people understand that the ideal does not exist.
3)If there is a concept of ''ideality'' on the market, this conflicts with the concepts of ''difference'' and ''specialty'', because all the different and special is non-ideal. So, a negative attitude is cultivated towards differences and specialties.
4)If there is no ''ideality'' concept, any differences and specialties can be positioned as positive. This point contains a potential for growth and development of the corresponding goods and markets, while the existing ''ideality'' concept restrains the diamond market.
''

Full text
http://www.gemology.ru/cut/english/conference_posters/7.htm

Catching up here a little today. Lots of thoughts to respond to but caught this as I''m catching up. Very interesting Sergey. Question: Do you object to the use of the term "ideal" by a grading lab altogether? I understand your point above which coincides with diamondseeker''s comments.