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

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/18/2006 3:15:57 PM
Author: RockDoc

Both WF and GOG identify GIA Excellents which are Ideal cut, so that is not an issue at all in the situation where people are being steered only to AGS0. However, staff from either store can say an SI2 is eyeclean to them, but until you see it yourself, you do not know whether it will truly be eyeclean for YOU. It can expensive and time consuming to send for stones and then have to return them.

So these two things are NOT the same.-----------

__________________________________________


Respectfully, there are some very great differences here. Please consider that I am not trying to make anyone feel badly about their GIA Excellent Cut grade stone, nor do I intend to insult someone''s judgment in picking what their personal choices have been.

Marty, has statistically analyzed the results of how many GIA ex''s are issued as compared to AGS issued ones. I believe he has stated that his analysis shows that GIA will issue an ex cut grade 7 times more frequently than AGS will. While in the eye of a consumer, there maybe no difference, there IS a difference to us who are able to discern differences and that does affect the value of the stone. This may be an issue for some and not for others.

For those who have GIA ex''s the PGS software can issue a far more detailed analysis. Some of the GIA ex''s will cut grade as AGS 0 ''s - but I''d also say that some won''t. I have seen some ''signature'' stones that have AGS 0 cut grade reports, that are slightly less, than others. While the AGS cut grade system is ''tighter'' than what GIA does, it still leaves open some variance, and carefully examined it shows at least to those qualified to discern the differences.

As I wrote above, AGS PGS isn''t yet ''perfect'', but at this time it is the best we have. Using that informational data, in comparison with other tests, it provides another level of information that is valuable to consumers when analyzed.

All of the technology is ''young''. I look forward to future development, and improvement which WILL come in time.

The really tough part is that unless a diamond''s proportions, quality of workmanship, are depart from the ''norm'' they still look ''beautiful''. Consumers should always keep in mind that ''beauty is not always something that we can analyze or predict as personal preferences, which are also many times relegated to BUDGET, is apparent.

I would offer that virtually none of the analysis equipment considers a beauty result. Some folks want contrast and white brilliance, others like broad flash of dispersion, other like the small rainbow colors and some wish that their diamond have more scintillation from across a room at a distance.

The PGS brings the playing field a tad more level. It can certainly help sort of the really ex cut grades from the wannabe cut grades.

As long as the analysis is well disclosed as to certainty, and any limitation or condition, it is useful, helpful and informative to consumers.

Rockdoc

So are you saying at this time, no one should buy a WhiteFlash or GOG GIA Excellent because they are unqualified to pick outstanding GiA excellents out of the bunch? That appears to be what you''re saying, because I never suggested in any way that ALL GIA excellents were acceptable. I said the specially selected ones by WF and GOG are worthy of being considered as well as AGS0. So if I''m wrong, there are a few of us who need to return stones to WF and GOG.

 

[Mara]

Date: 9/18/2006 3:20:48 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

So are you saying at this time, no one should buy a WhiteFlash or GOG GIA Excellent because they are unqualified to pick outstanding GiA excellents out of the bunch? That appears to be what you're saying, because I never suggested in any way that ALL GIA excellents were acceptable. I said the specially selected ones by WF and GOG are worthy of being considered as well as AGS0. So if I'm wrong, there are a few of us who need to return stones to WF and GOG.

What? Why would someone really want to buy or return a stone SOLELY based on what a website header has on it?

I don't choose my stones based on some website's or jeweler's characterization. I choose them based on a set of specs that I find acceptable and appropriate. I don't care if WF or GOG or AGS or GIA says it's AGS0 or GIA EX or whatever. If I cared, then I wouldn't have bought my stone because it's *only* a GIA VG due to some painting.

IMO, this is all about PERCEPTION. One person's perception of ideal is going to be AGS or GIA or not. Perception of if AGS or GIA is better. It's all personal preference. Same as the SI2 issue. Or color. Sure GIA or AGS can say something is EX or 0 but I don't know many PS'ers who buy solely on a characterization like that. Maybe the general masses but is that the audience being discussed?

After reading this silently for a few days, this convo is finally starting to get kind of out there.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/17/2006 8:08:26 PM
Author: Rhino
Wazzup JohnnyQ!

Quick question. What exactly do you mean when you say ...

style="WIDTH: 99%; HEIGHT: 29px">

We know what grades they will receive from the lab before sending and more.

Are you expressing your firms confidence in the grade before sending it to the lab? If so, I understand where you're coming from. I think every vendor submitting stones likes to estimate a grade (at least those who do indeed grade diamonds). If not please clarify. Curious.

Hi Rhino. We're fairly confident. Bob instructed courses with GIA and worked for GIA laboratories as a diamond grader. He went on to earn his CG and CGA from AGS while working in a member retail store (in accordance with AGS guidelines he does not use those titles now) so we're equipped to know how a candidate would fare in either system. Brian does optical symmetry grading and inspects finish to determine which rounds may be ACA. I wouldn't say we count our chickens before they hatch, but we have an idea.

I agree. A question that comes to mind is have we done anything that contributes to a decrease in consumer confidence or increase it? Have we done anything to violate sound ethical practices to the consumers shopping the Internet or are we hurting consumer confidence? It is my conviction that firms like yours, and others who participate on this forum are setting an example for others to follow. I view us as ones who are helping, not hurting. Wouldn't you agree?

I agree. I also believe some will be more conservative than others with these decisions. That’s not right or wrong, it just is. I am reminded of the Spidey-Line; ‘With great power comes great responsibility.’

I have a question for you bro. How do you feel about providing an estimated GIA Cut Grade on an AGS lab graded diamond?

The proportions would be a simple matter. Polish & Symmetry would need to be assessed by someone who is a GG, though the grade provided in the document could be a guideline. One would also need to know thresholds for painting/digging.

I greatly appreciate you sharing the thoughts of your heart with me on this John. Whatever AGS says to do I will gladly follow.

Their opinion will really be more important than the conversations here (but no more passionate I would think).

If you mean by taking heat from consumers on this, I would have to question their motivations. What consumer would not want to know this information?

I was actually referring to heat from retailers, specifically AGS members who may 'harumph' about it.

Date: 9/15/2006 10:42:03 PM
Author: 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.

Thanks man.

You're welcome. I think your newest change is prudent as well. Someone else (forgive me for not recalling who) said we're exploring new territory here. That's a definite considering all of the changes in the way cut grading is handled lately. At least we're not boring.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Mara, I had only made the point that BOTH WF and GOG select outstanding GIA excellents for their inventory, and those are equally worthy of consideration to AGS0''s. Rock Doc then brings back up all the GIA Ex that are not so great, but I had already qualified I was talking about ones that had been very carefully selected by those vendors. So my last remark was out of frustration, because I think Rcok Doc totally missed the point! I never said all GIA excellents were worthy of consideration!!!

 

[JohnQuixote]

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?

No way. The most beautiful diamond that exists could be graded by any lab. Or not graded at all.

'Buy the stone, not the paper...' We have hundreds of GIA-graded diamonds I'm confident would earn top marks in any system. Actually, in retail markets the GIA is seen as preeminent from a name-recognition & strictness standpoint.

I understand how someone with a GIA graded diamond may get this impression from the way the labs are discussed on PS sometimes - but it has nothing to do with any specific gem. It’s about the width and standards of the different systems. Factually, the top AGS grade is narrower than the top GIA grade in an evaluative sense (brillianteering notwithstanding).

Another inference that could be (is) made on PS sometimes is that EGL and IGI diamonds are "inferior," because their systems and standards are perceived as wider than AGS and GIA. The fact is, the most beautiful diamond on earth could have been graded by any, or none, of the labs above.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/17/2006 10:15:22 AM
Author: adamasgem

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

Here it is, Marty: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-and-gia-cut-comparison-charts.41793/

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/17/2006 7:56:29 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

I see no difference in what Jonathan does and when WhiteFlash labels ES diamonds as 'Ideal Cut' which are GIA graded. That is inferring AGS because AGS issues the grade of Ideal. So if Jonathan can't give an estimated AGS cut grade, the WF needs to change all their GIA Excellent stones to Excellent Cut and not ideal. I see NO difference.

ETA: But Jonathan can give estimated AGS proportions and light performance legitimately, so if he wants to change to those terms, I think that is fine.

Hi again DS.

This may be redundant - others may have said it - but for the record the word ‘ideal’ is commonly used outside of any lab inference. For example, Serg linked Blue Nile’s definitions for their usage of the term ‘ideal.’

For the last 6 years any Expert Selection identified as ‘ideal cut’ simply means it has traditional ideal proportions. This allows us to serve clients who prefer a GIA report, but are seeking a diamond within those proven measurements.

So, regardless of grading report:

ES diamonds listed as ‘Round Ideal Cut’ imply cut with traditional ideal measurements.
ES diamonds listed as just ‘Round’ were not cut to those measurements.

Any actual lab-issued cut grade will be found on the actual grading report which accompanies the diamnond (if it has a cut grade - remember, prior to 2006 GIA did not).

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/17/2006 9:07:56 PM
Author: Carlotta

Since John Q. will inevitably be summoned here, I have another question:

I notice that WF states that expert selection stones are cut to 'ideal proportions' and that ACA's are 'superideals/hearts and arrows???'

How is 'superideal' measured??? Are ALL precise hearts and arrow stones considered superideals?? (this term also is part of the recent painting article....)

Hark! A summoning.

There is no official definition for superideal, Carlotta. It’s a term that is commonly recognized as a diamond cut near Tolkowsky proportions with a high degree of optical symmetry.

Just like the word ‘ideal,’ you'll find different interpretations of ‘superideal.’

We have a certain range of proportions we’ll allow to quality. We also believe they should meet the highest standards of make, including polish and symmetry (this is ‘our’ thing, others may not agree) and any diamond we advertise as superideal must pass Brian’s grading standards for H&A.

Several fellow PS vendors have similar standards, but in the mainstream (just as with generic ‘ideal’), generic ‘superideal’ has different meanings. In fact, some commercial H&A diamonds may not even have great light return.

We value the concept of superideal, especially the resultant consistency, but it should be said that they are not necessarily more beautiful than well-made ‘ideal’ (or excellent, or premium, or top-notch, or phat, or hoopy) diamonds.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/18/2006 3:40:59 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

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?

No way. The most beautiful diamond that exists could be graded by any lab. Or not graded at all.

''Buy the stone, not the paper...'' We have hundreds of GIA-graded diamonds I''m confident would earn top marks in any system. Actually, in retail markets the GIA is seen as preeminent from a name-recognition & strictness standpoint.

I understand how someone with a GIA graded diamond may get this impression from the way the labs are discussed on PS sometimes - but it has nothing to do with any specific gem. It’s about the width and standards of the different systems. Factually, the top AGS grade is narrower than the top GIA grade in an evaluative sense (brillianteering notwithstanding).

Another inference that could be (is) made on PS sometimes is that EGL and IGI diamonds are ''inferior,'' because their systems and standards are perceived as wider than AGS and GIA. The fact is, the most beautiful diamond on earth could have been graded by any, or none, of the labs above.

Yay!!

Big hugs to you John!! That''s all I was trying to say in multiple posts!

 

[RockDoc]

DS wrote:

So are you saying at this time, no one should buy a WhiteFlash or GOG GIA Excellent because they are unqualified to pick outstanding GiA excellents out of the bunch? That appears to be what you''re saying, because I never suggested in any way that ALL GIA excellents were acceptable. I said the specially selected ones by WF and GOG are worthy of being considered as well as AGS0. So if I''m wrong, there are a few of us who need to return stones to WF and GOG.

_______________________________


DS.

I am not saying that at all. I am merely stating a statistical result made by Marty, who is very much a good statistian.

Certainly there are threads discussing how the GIA cut grade is rendered, and it is a fact that it is proportion based, and then rounded up.

It certainly does NOT go through all the details and considerations that the PGS software does. I think it is pretty much a no-brainer to consider which is the more reliable result.

Any consumer who wishes to feel they are equal can, but in my opinion they are being "willfully blind". If you do that is just peachy with me. GIA is certainly spent much time in constructing a cut grade system. It is just my opinion, which is shared by other professionals that AGS created a better mousetrap.

This DOES NOT MEAN that anyone with a GIA report should get upset, and want to return it. It COULD be an AGS Cut Grade 0. I emphasis COULD. I have never said that an AGS cut grade 1 or 2 would be unattractive or unacceptable.

It is simply a better method and more scientific method of analyzing and coming up with a cut grading, that is more intense, and more detailed than GIA''s.

I''ve even run PGS analysis for several PS''ers who have GIA ex''s and got the .srn files or .stl files to input into PGS. I did this as a courtesy and experiment for people at no charge, and CLEARLY limited the consideration of the result in that I did not personally examine the polish and symmetry grading, and they clearly understood this. I believe the reason for this is that very few people have access to their actual .srn files.

I didn''t get enough takers on this, to make a reliable sampling. But based on the proportional scans, the PGS rated them as 0 cut grade - again limited to personal expert examination of the polish and symmetry.

How is that saying that people should return their GIA graded stones?

Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This thread now reminds me of the feeling I get waliking into the gym at 6am and seeing 30 people running, ridng and climbing on stationary machines.

Lots of sweat and energy, but not being harnessed and fed into the grid

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/18/2006 4:16:51 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

This thread now reminds me of the feeling I get waliking into the gym at 6am and seeing 30 people running, ridng and climbing on stationary machines.

Lots of sweat and energy, but not being harnessed and fed into the grid

But are we getting in shape Garry?

If so, what should we call our improved proportions?.. Not ''ideal'' I''m thinking!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/18/2006 4:10:25 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Yay!!

Big hugs to you John!! That''s all I was trying to say in multiple posts!

LOL. Thanks. It''s hard to keep track of the ''threads within threads'' over so many pages. Glad I said something that made sense.

If you wind up hugging Garry go carefully. It sounds like he''s sweaty.

 

[Rod]

Date: 9/18/2006 4:16:51 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
This thread now reminds me of the feeling I get waliking into the gym at 6am and seeing 30 people running, ridng and climbing on stationary machines.

Lots of sweat and energy, but not being harnessed and fed into the grid

OK Gary, you''ve been holding out on us. There is a VERY wonderful group of us PS''ers who are very health minded and we have a weekly workout thread, which is lovingly started every Monday AM, by our very lovely, and newly fitness energized Lorelei, and we''d love to welcome you to our healthy family. Actually, there are only two guys on the thread, so we''d welcome another male point of view............As they say on the TV gameshow The Prices Right, "Garry Holloway.........Come on Down!!!"

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

gee Rod - I luuuuv ladies, how about a link?

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 9/18/2006 4:21:13 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 9/18/2006 4:16:51 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

This thread now reminds me of the feeling I get waliking into the gym at 6am and seeing 30 people running, ridng and climbing on stationary machines.

Lots of sweat and energy, but not being harnessed and fed into the grid

But are we getting in shape Garry?

If so, what should we call our improved proportions?.. Not ''ideal'' I''m thinking!

GIA used to sell T-Shirts with a graphic of a Tolkowsky proportioned diamond graphic, with the words "Ideal Proportions".

Although for some maybe Pear Shaped is the right shape to define them

Tough to find time for gym and PS.

Rockdoc

 

[Rod]

Date: 9/18/2006 4:35:49 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
gee Rod - I luuuuv ladies, how about a link?

Gary you don''t need a link. It''s right here on Pricescope in the Family and Home section, and the thread is called Weekly Workout Thread for the week of XX - XX. Come on and join us. But be advised, we''re pretty serious about bettering ourselves from a health standpoint!!

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 9/18/2006 4:35:49 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
gee Rod - I luuuuv ladies, how about a link?

Garry,


I think most of the ladies here are spoken for ( engaged,married, whatever)..... most with incredible pet rocks!

Us unmarried guys here don''t stand a chance....

Rockdoc

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/18/2006 4:37:08 PM
Author: RockDoc

Date: 9/18/2006 4:21:13 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 9/18/2006 4:16:51 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

This thread now reminds me of the feeling I get waliking into the gym at 6am and seeing 30 people running, ridng and climbing on stationary machines.

Lots of sweat and energy, but not being harnessed and fed into the grid

But are we getting in shape Garry?

If so, what should we call our improved proportions?.. Not ''ideal'' I''m thinking!

GIA used to sell T-Shirts with a graphic of a Tolkowsky proportioned diamond graphic, with the words ''Ideal Proportions''.

Although for some maybe Pear Shaped is the right shape to define them

Tough to find time for gym and PS.

Rockdoc

Lol! That''s the truth!!!

 

[belle]

Date: 9/18/2006 4:40:37 PM
Author: RockDoc

Date: 9/18/2006 4:35:49 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
gee Rod - I luuuuv ladies, how about a link?

Garry,


I think most of the ladies here are spoken for ( engaged,married, whatever)..... most with incredible pet rocks!

Us unmarried guys here don''t stand a chance....

Rockdoc

yep, i have a most incredible gia graded ''very good''

and i''m proud of it.

 

[Rod]

Date: 9/18/2006 4:57:32 PM
Author: belle

Date: 9/18/2006 4:40:37 PM
Author: RockDoc

Date: 9/18/2006 4:35:49 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
gee Rod - I luuuuv ladies, how about a link?

Garry,


I think most of the ladies here are spoken for ( engaged,married, whatever)..... most with incredible pet rocks!

Us unmarried guys here don''t stand a chance....

Rockdoc

yep, i have a most incredible gia graded ''very good''

and i''m proud of it.

And you know I do too Belle!!! Us GIA Very Good''ers need to stand up and be counted!!! except of course I''m not one of the ladies Gary is obviously seeking..........LOL

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Okay, back to the real topic (I think).

So for purposes of clarity, we can use the terms "AGS Ideal Cut" and "AGS0" to mean the same thing, is that correct?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 9/18/2006 7:58:30 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Okay, back to the real topic (I think).

So for purposes of clarity, we can use the terms ''AGS Ideal Cut'' and ''AGS0'' to mean the same thing, is that correct?

Almost, and many people do use them that way. Actually if you refer to the AGS0 you should more properly refer to it at the AGS0 cut grade to distinguish it from the AGS0 color or clarity grades.

Wink

P.S. I have a call in to Jim at AGS to ask him to look at all the legaleeze and let us know what the intent of AGS was. When I attended the AGS Stars class with Neal last Spring there was absolutely NO MENTION of us not being able to share results with our clients. Doesn''t make any sense to me at all that they would sell a product for a LOT of money, and then tell people the results are secret. But then I am not an attorney so don''t listen to me until I have some word directly from the AGS people.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thanks, Wink!

I was a little confused about all the problems people had with Jonathan''s estimated AGS cut grade when there are other vendors using the "AGS Ideal" label for stones that are not AGS Ideal. This certainly seems more problematic to me than the other. I''ll attempt to post an example if I can get it to attach. Here is the webpage link:

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/expert-selection/1.htm

 

[Mara]

DS...what are you basing your AGS ideal criteria on from that screenshot? The AGS at the end of the stone descriptor?

WhiteFlash lists the report name next to the information on the diamond...so if it's AGS graded it says AGS and if it's GIA it says GIA on the end. If you would scroll through the pages, you would see that. It also just says 'Round Ideal Cut' not AGS Ideal Cut.

Please clarify what your confusion is.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 9/18/2006 8:35:30 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 9/18/2006 7:58:30 PM

Author: diamondseeker2006

Okay, back to the real topic (I think).


So for purposes of clarity, we can use the terms ''AGS Ideal Cut'' and ''AGS0'' to mean the same thing, is that correct?

Almost, and many people do use them that way. Actually if you refer to the AGS0 you should more properly refer to it at the AGS0 cut grade to distinguish it from the AGS0 color or clarity grades.


Wink


P.S. I have a call in to Jim at AGS to ask him to look at all the legaleeze and let us know what the intent of AGS was. When I attended the AGS Stars class with Neal last Spring there was absolutely NO MENTION of us not being able to share results with our clients. Doesn''t make any sense to me at all that they would sell a product for a LOT of money, and then tell people the results are secret. But then I am not an attorney so don''t listen to me until I have some word directly from the AGS people.

wink, I was wondering the same thing and was hoping once someone heard from AGS it might become clearer. Why would they even sell it to a non-member or anyone for that matter if the results couldn''t be shared. What''s the point of even having the info as a seller if you can''t use the info as a selling point.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

With a little help, I got it to attach! I highlighted some of the stones I saw that seemed to be AGS Excellent and not AGS Ideal, yet they are labeled AGS Ideal on the webpage. I''ll show a couple of the certs to show what I mean. I had to reduce the size of this, but it says the polish and symmetry are Excellent, so doesn''t that mean it can''t be ideal cut/AGS0?

 

[Mara]

Date: 9/18/2006 9:09:10 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
With a little help, I got it to attach! I highlighted some of the stones I saw that seemed to be AGS Excellent and not AGS Ideal, yet they are labeled AGS Ideal on the webpage. I''ll show a couple of the certs to show what I mean. I had to reduce the size of this, but it says the polish and symmetry are Excellent, so doesn''t that mean it can''t be ideal cut/AGS0?

WHERE are they labeled ''AGS Ideal'' on the webpage?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/18/2006 9:05:48 PM
Author: Mara

DS...what are you basing your AGS ideal criteria on from that screenshot? The AGS at the end of the stone descriptor?

WhiteFlash lists the report name next to the information on the diamond...so if it's AGS graded it says AGS and if it's GIA it says GIA on the end. If you would scroll through the pages, you would see that. It also just says 'Round Ideal Cut' not AGS Ideal Cut.

Please clarify what your confusion is.

Mara, the screen shot says Ideal Cut AGS, and several of the stones I clicked on were clearly not AGS ideal cut, unless excellent polish and symmetry can be ideal????

 

[Mara]

Date: 9/18/2006 9:11:01 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 9/18/2006 9:05:48 PM
Author: Mara

DS...what are you basing your AGS ideal criteria on from that screenshot? The AGS at the end of the stone descriptor?

WhiteFlash lists the report name next to the information on the diamond...so if it's AGS graded it says AGS and if it's GIA it says GIA on the end. If you would scroll through the pages, you would see that. It also just says 'Round Ideal Cut' not AGS Ideal Cut.

Please clarify what your confusion is.

Mara, the screen shot says Ideal Cut AGS, and several of the stones I clicked on were clearly not ideal cut, unless excellent polish and symmetry can be ideal????

NO it does not JUST say 'Ideal Cut AGS'. That's one snippet of the whole line.

Did you read what I said up above? Did you scroll through any of the pages or did you just screenshot the first thing you saw that fit your theory?

Here it is again. WF puts THE REPORTING LAB behind their stone descriptor on the webpage. So if it was graded by AGS it says AGS at the end. If it was graded by GIA it says GIA at the end. If you look through their stones in ES you will see some say GIA at the end. Click and see it has a GIA REPORT.

To be specific what it DOES actually say on each stone is:

Round Ideal Cut AGS
OR
Round Ideal Cut GIA

So to me it is not even remotely classifying the stone as an 'AGS Ideal'. They are simply saying it's a Round Ideal Cut (as in their pulldown it says the SAME THING) and then the lab descriptor of AGS or GIA behind it.

Could we be any farther reaching here?! This thread is crazy.