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

[Rhino]

Date: 9/17/2006 10:24:59 AM
Author: 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*

Thank you for voicing this. I can''t begin to tell you how many emails I get from consumers, clients and past clients expressing the same sentiments.

 

[Rhino]

Hey RockHound,

Hope you''re having a good weekend.

Date: 9/15/2006 6:46:24 PM
Author: RockDoc

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).

Thanks for the reminder.

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

Rock... I hear you. Hear me out for a second because I think a mountain is being made of an anthill here and I what I am about to say I don''t want you to take wrong or that I am making light of AGS system or the people involved. I respect them and their system with the utmost regards.

Even if I were a CG/GG/CGA/FGAA/CIA/FBI etc. ad nauseum I would still use the word "estimate" as a matter of conscience if indeed the stone was not send to the AGS Lab.

Something I think we are all overlooking is the fact that we work in an industry and in a trade that makes estimates each and every day on each and every diamond we inspect and analyze. John stated in a prior post how the folks there at WF predict/estimate a grade before it is sent to the lab. I talk with cutters and manufacturers who estimate the grades of their diamonds before it is ever sent to any lab. It is a common practice in our industry. If I make clear that what I''m stating is an estimate, I honestly don''t see the harm in that especially after the stone has been graded by a reputable, conservative lab plus that of my own. I am not stating a stone is AGS Ideal Cut if it was not sent to AGS. Just an estimate based on our criteria for grading diamonds which includes the authorized tools from/by AGS laboratories.

A question I would pose to you my friend. Say a client sends you a GIA graded diamond. It''s a triple X, and you''ve confirmed the polish and symmetry grades. You also produce an accurate model and run it through the AGS PGS software to determine light performance and proportion factors becuase your client would like to know how it would fare in the AGS Cut Grading system and this stone get the Ideal light performance grade and proportion factors (which you''ve also confirmed with microscopic examination).

What exactly do you tell them?

a. This diamond would receive an AGS Ideal Cut Grade because...
b. I estimate this diamond would receive an AGS Ideal Cut Grade because...

I''m curious to know what you and other appraiers who have the abillity to do so tell your clients.

Peace,

 

[Regular Guy]

Two things...

a) For those who go shopping non-virtually, the question of requirements for ideal seem much less important...you can look and compare. For those who have understood, appreciated, and decided to shop virtually, finding reliable thresholds that describe what they are looking for becomes important, no doubt.

b) Though I have no basis upon which really to have an opinion, I do read here that there continue to be two differences of understanding on the specific question, of why anyone would send a diamond to GIA, if they felt it could score AGS0 by sending it to AGS. The differences, of course, point to the conclusion that it is or isn't reasonable to expect this. It would be nice if consensus could come forward. To review briefly, Storm says, yeah, happens all the time, pointing, it seems to his experience with Jonathan's shop (I'm guessing). Or, eta, specifically (for why GIA is used over AGS):

"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 conclusion seems to be here, if it's understood that a greater yield in payola from the customer is available with AGS paper, is that the cutter and front man for the cutter (if there is a separate one) simply don't take the time to realize the difference, based on the effort required to make this happen. This extrapolates that it may not be utilitarian to make a special effort for a specific diamond, or that the profit motive is not always the driver for behavior...(eta) the latter of which most consistently fits, if we are to understand, as Jonathan & Storm do, that the shops who regularly employ GIA, do this systematically...however, since the profit motive seems always to be a target...we have to wonder about the economic model that says AGS would logically be preferred, if it could be used.)

Alternately, we have Garry saying:

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.

and we have Marty wondering:

"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....."

Are there matters of substance that remain unresolved on this issue?

(edited further to add...) so, maybe this becomes a reasonable question, mentioned out loud above:

"... since the profit motive seems always to be a target...we have to wonder about the economic model that says AGS would logically be preferred, if it could be used.

Maybe using AGS doesn't always reliably bring in more money, net? This would make the use of GIA more than reasonable, whenever it is used. Is there any question about this?

 

[RockDoc]

I''d tell them the facts.

The PGS software is essentially the same, as it is used in the lab, except as I understand it the lab''s version at AGS also does some graphical stuff- probably related to the proportion graphic in their reports.

Except for polish and symmetry, the process for the new cut grade should be the same.

The only variable factor is in the polish and symmetry grading which should be done by a qualified person.

As you can see from the report the PGS issues, it is pretty finicky about the characteristics of the light return. If a stone has 0''s across the board, I would tell the client that, I''ve looked at the polish and symmetry and reported what I see factually. If this would affect the resultant cut grade, I would state that.

As Marty previously wrote above, I agree that if a stones symmetry, proportions, and ability to return light would result in a 0 cut grade, dinging it for a very minor polishing defect might be a tad "heavy handed". That would be my professional opinion of it. I would say so when I spoke to the client. I would also state what percentage of surety I am in providing the estimated grading. i.e am I 100% sure or 75% sure? for example.

It isn''t "perfect" yet, but I think over time, a possibly more exact/fair system will evolve.

Since much of this is based on the non-contact scan, we have to see how scans from the Sarin improve, how exact the Megascope gets improved, and if the Helium does this as accurately as it claims.

I recently did an 8* diamond, where the sarin scan was not as good as I though it could be. I scanned it multiple time using the various available settings to achieve the best scan. I also took ASET images of it in the desktop unit, and viewed it also through the ASET presentation one. In spite of the slightly skewed Sarin image, the generated ASET image came out looking superior. The PGS results also came out as a 0 cut grade. In one of the categories there was a very slight departure from 0.0 result. I''ve been told by Jim (at AGS) if the cut grading result is 0 to "ignore" it. in the interest of reporting all the Facts to the client it was disclosed.

I''ve also discussed the limitations of the scans and results from a totally objective position.

Rockdoc

 

[Regular Guy]

Continuation question from above, with related nits...

Presuming the buyer wants AGS matched qualities, what is the likelihood he could get it elsewhere (i.e., those qualities, but with paper from other labs).

In consideration of:

GIA takes a long time, right? So there''s a hold up of the ability to market the diamond, right?

Also, if the diamond has these AGS0 ideal specs, what is the likelihood it will have been forwarded to other labs, to include:

AGA
PGS
EGL (of any variety)
IGI

Does Marty''s recent mention, and Pricescope''s wisdom on the overvaluing of polish issues factor in...causing a GIA excellent to be more sought after, in a substantial number of cases, over an AGS 1, for example?

Generally...how predictable is the patterning of diamonds meeting the higher qualitative standards map onto the house that graded it?

Do the premium pricing models take care of insuring the logicalness of the expected patterning?

Or are there other important variables at work, concerning where the diamond is sent?

 

[Rhino]

Hi Alj,

Thanks for the repsonse. My thoughts below.

Date: 9/15/2006 7:35:49 PM
Author: aljdewey

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

If his apprentice makes it clear that this is NOT the impression and even puts so in writing that is unequivocally clear I don''t see how his estimate would be unfair when he has made it abundabtly clear that all it is, is an estimate. This makes no sense.

2) if, while making that claim, you were selling term papers to potential students for their use.

Again, if Mr. Thompson''s apprentice has spelled it out for his clients and they walk into their decisions knowing the facts beforehand I don''t see Mr. Thompson''s apprentice being misleading or misrepresentative when all he is trying to do is help his clients with an estimate based on his knowledge and experience.

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

Actually I think it does but lets look at your other example.

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.

Amen! I agree! All the radiology tech can do is offer an *estimate* of what he feels the doc may say. I guess a question I would pose at this point Alj is, am I giving the impression that I am AGS or am I giving the impression that my estimate is in fact THE actual AGS cut grade?

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.

I''m using the analogy to make a point, nothing more.)

LOL... good thing you wrote that last clause cause that''s exactly what was going through my mind. While estimating a cut grade on a diamond is not on par with a life or death situation I hear your point though because a person''s financial decision is important and the information leading that person to a decision/conclusion should be presented with the utmost integrity. You see, I''ve throught this through Alj and there is an instance wherein the radiology tech can write down their written estimate. When? When that permission is given by the laws of this country to do so and the tech is within the boundaries of any contract they signed when taking on the job. As far as I know jewelers/appraisers/gemologist''s who perform appraisals (which are in fact written estimates) are not bound by any law preventing them from estimating a diamonds grade within any system. We are all allowed to offer our professional estimate/opinion.

Let me also clarify. When my new site was completed I contacted my friends in both labs to have them read it over, review things and I asked if they saw anything they felt needed change or clarification I''d be happy to make the necessary adjustments and did so where/when advised to help make things more clear etc. Since this topic has come up I have sent an email to my contacts at AGS to clarify what I can and can''t do and I am ready to incorporate any changes they suggest. They know I''m a team player and I''ll respect whatever changes they deem necessary. If an appraiser/jeweler/vendor such as myself can not offer information provided by the tools they are marketing ... what''s the sense?

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.

I beg to differ here. We are indeed a grading lab. Perhaps not in the sense that AGS or GIA is but neither is any other person in the trade who offers their professional opinion/estimate on a diamonds grade be it clarity, color or cut. I may not yet be a full GG (I have completed all diamond grading and advanced diamond grading lab courses with GIA) but I know I can grade a diamond as good if not better than any GG plus we possess tools that generally far outweigh what most appraisers in this country possess with regards to diamond grading. There are other folks in this industry who are not GG''s yet know alot about diamonds whose opinion I greatly respect. Sergey being one of them. Al Gilbertson another. The list goes on.

Alj, think about this. If this industry was to practice what you are suggesting then there would be no appraisers as "they should not offer even an estimate of what an individual lab would likely assign as a grade". When an appraiser does an appraisal be it an independant or myself we grade the diamond according to the GIA or AGS (or both) grading systems for carat weight, clarity, color and cut. AGS or GIA would have no benefit or motivation to sell the lab equipment or education they do to folks like us who analyze/inspect diamonds for a living and do appraisals on diamonds. If we take your suggestion to its logical conclusion nobody would be able to offer "even an estimate" on any diamond. It would have to go to "the lab" and the lab alone if a person is even looking for an estimate. That is not the way this industry works and is illogical from my perspective.

What I find interesting is for decades folks in this industry could appraise/estimate GIA grades on diamonds in our appraisals, which in their very essence are written estimates, a common practice in this industry, and now all of a sudden it''s taboo? Why now?

I would agree that appraisers and vendors should be held to high standards and I would even go so far as saying that there should be certain federal laws instituted that ensure anyone offering a written appraisal/estimate meet certain qualifications but until that is carried out what I am doing is really no different than any appraiser who offers his professional opinion/prediction/estimate.

As you note in this thread there are pro''s who see no problem with expressing their opinion/estimate/prediction on how a diamond may fare in a labs cut grading system. John, Neil, myself and others see no problem with this. That is clear. Where we differ perhaps is how we communicate it. Some folks may prefer to do it over the phone. Some may publish it in their appraisal or website. The point is a written estimate is just that. It''s not an actual AGS or GIA lab report it''s just an estimate. A practice this industry has been doing since its very inception.

Hope that helps and I apologize for my delay in responding. I appreciate your thoughts and input and I really do enjoy the dialogue.


Kindest regards,

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/17/2006 1:01:17 PM
Author: 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.

No, DS, that's not what the HCA does. It doesn't *do* that, and it doesn't *claim* to do that.

The HCA predicts possible performance (meaning 'is it a great stone?'?) based solely on cut proportions----proportions only. Below is a copy of the box AND the accompanying text that says what the box represents. Please read the text...and read it carefully.

The text specifies that it talks about proportions. It says essentially 'this will tell you if the PROPORTIONS of this stone fit within the parameters of GIA or AGS metrics.

However, for either lab, it takes MORE than just fitting the cut PROPORTIONS to earn the labelled GRADE. The grade is the sum of a few factors: proportions, symmetry, polish, light performance, etc. etc. If you meet one element (have the right proportions) but don't meet others (substandard polish, substandard light performance, etc), you DON'T GET THE GRADE!

HCA says "yep, it does fit the proportions." It doesn't make ANY representations about the other elements, and therefore doesn't say (or estimate) that any stone will meet ALL the criteria to carry the cut GRADE.

And, if you'd just go back are read the earlier part of the thread, in Jonathan's case, I did suggest that if Jonathan changed his wording to represent "PROPORTIONS" instead of "GRADE" (which is what most customers really are asking about anyway), it would change things ENTIRELY and would be more ethical. Why? Because then he's only saying "yes, it has these proportions", which isn't the same as saying "this would EARN THE GRADE".

If this difference isn't clear by now, I just don't know how to help make it clearer.

ALSO, DS.....a VERY important distinction. Garry isn't trying to sell diamonds with the HCA. Jonathan making an estimate about GRADE is done in an effort to sell diamonds to customers. VERY important difference.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/17/2006 1:01:17 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

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.

And similarly, I''d point out that I don''t share emails with Garry, and yet we both "get" why this isn''t ethically right. I don''t share emails with Paul, either....and he gets it.

As such, it''s obvious that several of us do "see it" with respect to why ANY vendor (jonathan or anyone else) offering information expressed as an estimation of ANY GIVEN LAB''S cut GRADE isn''t kosher.

 

[Rhino]

Hello again Alj,

Date: 9/15/2006 8:24:24 PM
Author: aljdewey

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.

Once I get the word I''ll let everyone here know. I don''t mind being the guinea pig in this instance.

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.

You have a point here but if I am to presume that AGS markets its lab equipment that its selling as the rest of the trade does, then I would be in line. Ie. GIA sells gemological microscopes so a person can examine/grade clarity and cut characteristics. I don''t have to get special permission from GIA to estimate a clarity grade or even to estimate a cut grade becuase I use the microscope I purchased from them. If AGS has chosen to play by different rules, I''ll respect that but that is a message I haven''t received. I read the agreement to the software license and there is nothing in it that says I can''t use it to do what I''m doing. I''m not breaking any rules that I am aware of.

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.

Which is why it is only an estimate. If/once we obtain membership I''d have to weigh whether I wanted to remove that term.

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?

They know I would never purposely jeapordize that which is why I always keep the lines of communication open. As expressed in my last post to ya, I am not doing anything different than what has always been done in this industry with lab equipment and professional opinions given utilizing lab equipment acquired.

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.

From the nomenclature I have read that accompanies the software I''m not breaking any rules I am aware of. I''m doing what this trade has always done with lab equipment they''ve acquired. Estimate grades. I''m not making unauthorized copies (Microsoft analogy) or using it in a deceptive/unethical way whatsoever.

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.

No no. That is NOT what I am doing. Websites that rip off my images have not paid for the right to use them. I have paid for the right to use the software in my work and agreed to the conditions set forth in the provided documentation. That is a huge difference.

Peace,

 

[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.

 

[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.

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Hello again John!

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.

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.

LOL. I''m wit ya on dat.

My other thougts will be in bold and in the blue below. (hrm... try saying that 10x fast)

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.

You''re correct that its a vein I''ve followed it yes it does seem to me to be a logical next step. I''m open to the philosophical directions and perspectives I might be missing John which is why I am happy to dialogue about this. Your kind words are appreciated. Whether you know it or not I have a mutual respect for your company. Sure we''ve bonked heads a few times but in my personal philosophy, I let bygones be bygones and each day is a new beginning. I appreciate you sharing these thoughts and I''m listening.

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.

Agreed. I never meant for my word to be taken on par with an AGS document. If that is the impression I have conveyed my sincere apologies as that is not my intent. I am making changes now to clearly state otherwise.

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.

I hear where you''re coming from. That is why any material AGS offers for use should be used in accord with whatever rules they set forth so that they are used ethically and responsibly. I will post here what response I get once it is outlined.

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.

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?

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?

Let me say this. Each of us seek to carve our niche on the Internet marketplace. Kenny mentioned in another recent thread how if AGS ideal asschers will not be marked up more than other''s then it''s nothing more than a wash. If proper profits are not made, then the whole thing will fail. I was a little taken aback by his response (which I''ve yet to respond to, sorry Ken), but with internet vendors offering diamonds at single digit markup''s how does a store, who wants to sell via the net survive on the Internet against those prices? My answer to that question is value added services. This is why I spend the time I do educating myself and purchasing the equipment I do on top of book education I''ve received. It is my way of carving my niche. If I do it honestly and ethically I see no harm in offering these value added services. I''m not looking to up the ante perse but I imagine it will be perceived that way. If so ... well I don''t know what to say. I can''t please everybody however I can''t imagine a consumer who would not appreciate it as long as it is done honestly and ethically.

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.

I greatly appreciate you sharing the thoughts of your heart with me on this John. Whatever AGS says to do I will gladly follow. 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 have a question for you bro. How do you feel about providing an estimated GIA Cut Grade on an AGS lab graded diamond?

Kindest regards,

 

[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....)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

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....)

Carlotta Brian from Whiteflash has his own standard (as do 8*) that he applies. He never claims it to be other than what his brand stands for.

Rhino I am not going to wade thru all your words and excuses. Please simply qualify your usage so that an average Joe would understand which is the lab grade and which is your estimate.

Imagine that you (reputable you) is allowed to get away with this unethical behaviour, and others (who are not reputable or skilled in the field) feel the need to compete with you by using the same unethical practice?

 

[mrssalvo]

looks like GOG already made the changes and it's pretty clear to me..

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/17/2006 10:01:17 PM
Author: mrssalvo
looks like GOG already made the changes and it''s pretty clear to me..

Thank you Rhino

 

[aljdewey]

Again, if Mr. Thompson''s apprentice has spelled it out for his clients and they walk into their decisions knowing the facts beforehand I don''t see Mr. Thompson''s apprentice being misleading or misrepresentative when all he is trying to do is help his clients with an estimate based on his knowledge and experience.

Rhino, you may not see it (and obviously, you don''t because if you did, you wouldn''t be doing this.). I know you aren''t intentionally trying to mislead folks, so it''s clear to me that you "don''t see it" ......but you should. I know your intention is good, and I know you''re just trying to help, but you''re doing it in a way that is ethically out of bounds.

Amen! I agree! All the radiology tech can do is offer an *estimate* of what he feels the doc may say. I guess a question I would pose at this point Alj is, am I giving the impression that I am AGS or am I giving the impression that my estimate is in fact THE actual AGS cut grade?

NO, Rhino, HE CAN''T. Geez.....that''s the whole point I''m trying to get across to you! He''s not allowed to give ANY information or ANY "estimate" because it''s not ETHICAL and because it could be misinterpreted by the patient-----despite every well-intentional disclaimer in the world. Believe me, I''m sure that many techs want to give information.....and like you, they want to do it for helpful reasons. It could be that they don''t want the patient to fret and worry for two more days until the doctor is available. That doesn''t matter.....they aren''t allowed to say anything! But Jon......good intentions don''t justify breaches of ethics.

He cannot say "I think don''t think it looks like a tumor." He cannot say "it''s not likely a tumor." He can''t say "it''s doesn''t look like tumors do." He can''t say "it doesn''t look bad." He can''t even say "your film looks normal"!!!!!!!!!!! He can''t say ANYTHING......ANYTHING! other than "I''m sorry, I can''t discuss the films with you. The doctor will do that for you. I''m just here to perform the test."

Do you realize that if a tech breaches this protocol in any way, he or she can be fired??!! Because it''s not protocol. It''s not right for him to represent ANYTHING because he''s not a doctor.

......there is an instance wherein the radiology tech can write down their written estimate. When? When that permission is given by the laws of this country to do so and the tech is within the boundaries of any contract they signed when taking on the job. As far as I know jewelers/appraisers/gemologist''s who perform appraisals (which are in fact written estimates) are not bound by any law preventing them from estimating a diamonds grade within any system. We are all allowed to offer our professional estimate/opinion.

Rhino, I can''t believe we even have to cover this ground, but ok. "Legal" and "ethical" aren''t the same thing, and if you don''t "see" the difference between these (or don''t WANT to appreciate the distinction), that''s an entirely different discussion.....and one I''m just not gonna get into. Segregation was legal at one point in this country; so was slavery. Neither was ever ethically right. If I see you drop a $20 on the ground at Home Depot, it may be ''lawful'' for me to pick it up and keep it.....but it doesn''t make ''ethically right''.

HOWEVER.....what you''re doing may not be permitted by law, either. You have admitted here that you are using the AGS PGS software to arrive at your ''professional estimation'' of the AGS Cut Grades posted on your website. Since that usage isn''t expressly granted as a licensed use of the software, what you''re doing may not be legal....in addition to not being ethical.

Let me also clarify. When my new site was completed I contacted my friends in both labs to have them read it over, review things and I asked if they saw anything they felt needed change or clarification I''d be happy to make the necessary adjustments and did so where/when advised to help make things more clear etc. Since this topic has come up I have sent an email to my contacts at AGS to clarify what I can and can''t do and I am ready to incorporate any changes they suggest. They know I''m a team player and I''ll respect whatever changes they deem necessary.

I''ll be interested to hear what they say. Make sure, Jon, that the person(s) replying (your contacts) is/are in a position of authority to grant you permissions to do what you''re doing. One of my clients recently phoned me to ask permission to use a screenshot of my company''s website as a display. I''m not legally empowered by my company to grant that permission. It has to come from our corporate attorney or specific members of management. Just anyone at my company won''t do.

I have to be honest and say that even if AGS were to grant permission for this use (making it LEGAL), I recognize how easy it would be for average consumers (those who don''t frequent diamond forums) to STILL get confused regardless of disclaimer. It''s quite clear throughout this thread that some folks here (who DO hang out in diamond forums) still struggle with the difference between ''ideal'' (generic meaning), "Ideal" meaning relative to field, and AGS0 Ideal (meaning earns the grade/has the paper). Because of that, I''d still feel it wasn''t right (ETHICAL) to bill your goods that way as a vendor.....especially when it would be SO EASY for you to rise above the ethical line by changing the word "grade" to "proportions".

It''s your reputation to manage as you see fit. Keep in mind, though, that many customers place a huge emphasis on ethics, particularly in your industry. I''d not want to choose the vendor that I perceive as operating by skirting the ethical line and exploiting legal loopholes to his advantage. I personally want the vendor who strives for the highest ethical standard to the point of choosing to err WAY over the line of the minimum expectation.

I beg to differ here. We are indeed a grading lab. Perhaps not in the sense that AGS or GIA is but neither is any other person in the trade who offers their professional opinion/estimate on a diamonds grade be it clarity, color or cut. I may not yet be a full GG (I have completed all diamond grading and advanced diamond grading lab courses with GIA) but I know I can grade a diamond as good if not better than any GG plus we possess tools that generally far outweigh what most appraisers in this country possess with regards to diamond grading.

Jonathan, really.....that''s just outlandish.

You''re not a grading lab....you''re a JEWELER with a vested interest in the sale! Again, for what must be the tenth time.....we all know you can properly assess a stone - your abilities aren''t in question. That doesn''t mean it''s ethically right for you to estimate that your goods earn a cut grade given by ANY other lab other than your "GOG Lab", if you insist on terming yourself a lab (which is just ridiculous). Oh, and by the way, appraisers offer their professional opinions on color, clarity and MAKE, but they *don''t* estimate what cut grade any other lab would assign. Then again, color and clarity are subjective assessments; whether or not something is AGS0 or not isn''t. It either has the paper or it doesn''t.

If this industry was to practice what you are suggesting then there would be no appraisers as ''they should not offer even an estimate of what an individual lab would likely assign as a grade''. When an appraiser does an appraisal be it an independant or myself we grade the diamond according to the GIA or AGS (or both) grading systems for carat weight, clarity, color and cut.

They do? Really? Are you sure? Gosh, Rhino.....you know what a stickler I am for facts, and knowing that, I can''t believe you''d actually make this claim without doing a little homework first.

But it''s ok......as a humble amateur, I did it for you, and here''s what I found. (I''ll stipulate up front that three appraisers may not necessarily represent what every appraiser does, but since I consider these folks tops in their field with several decades of combined experience, I think they qualify as a good benchmark.)

Here are the links to three respected INDEPENDENT appraisers on Pricescope.

http://www.consumersgemlab.com/services/page2.shtml - Bill lists 16 things he''ll tell you about your diamond in his appraisal....none of which is an estimated cut grade for any grading lab. http://www.gemappraisers.com/diamondtraderpt.htm - This sample copy of a report by Dave shows they assign an AGA cut grade (meaning his OWN).....NOT that of AGS or GIA.
http://www.sarasotagemlab.com/appraisal.htm - Rich Sherwood''s appraisal report doesn''t express an estimate of what AGS or GIA would assign for a cut grade either; he lists the AGA scale.

All use master sets to compare color, but NONE estimate what AGS or GIA would assign as a grade. From what I see, NONE of these appraisers (all UBER-qualified) tell clients what GIA or AGS *might* assign for a cut grade...even as an estimate. Oh....and none of them SELL DIAMONDS.

As you note in this thread there are pro''s who see no problem with expressing their opinion/estimate/prediction on how a diamond may fare in a labs cut grading system. John, Neil, myself and others see no problem with this. That is clear. Where we differ perhaps is how we communicate it. Some folks may prefer to do it over the phone. Some may publish it in their appraisal or website. The point is a written estimate is just that. It''s not an actual AGS or GIA lab report it''s just an estimate.

Yep - clear as mud. Rhino, are you reading the same thread I am? Communication is absolutely the problem.....as in your style of communication is to interpret according to what you want to hear and not what has been said. From where I''m reading, it was pretty clear to me that neither John nor Neil agreed that it was "no problem".

John pretty clearly summed up why it''s not ethically right, and Neil said "any diamond you see using the term AGS 0 or Ideal as part of its advertising [my comment: that''s not limited to estimating a cut grade, but ANY use of the term AGS0 Ideal] should be accompanied by an AGS grading report, or have been assessed by an AGS member using the PGS (proprietary grading software).....Unlike the standard GIA scale, the AGS grading scale is copyrighted and non-members are, at least theoretically, forbidden to use it publicly." Since you''re not an AGS member, Rhino, that''s not you.

 

[aljdewey]

I don''t have to get special permission from GIA to estimate a clarity grade or even to estimate a cut grade becuase I use the microscope I purchased from them. If AGS has chosen to play by different rules, I''ll respect that but that is a message I haven''t received. I read the agreement to the software license and there is nothing in it that says I can''t use it to do what I''m doing.

I don''t have a copy of the software license agreement myself, so I can''t speak to what the license grants rights to.

However, given Neil''s and RockDoc''s comments here, I''m imagining that the license agreement follows what is pretty standard protocol for intellectual property (which is the field I''ve worked in for the last several years, by the way).

Most license agreements grant rights in one of two ways: 1) "Here are the rights we don''t grant, and anything else is ok", or 2) "here are the rights we do grant, and nothing else is ok." Given Neil and Rock''s comments, I''d lean toward thinking it''s the latter. If so, they don''t have to say you can''t.......it''s enough that they haven''t said you CAN. Glad to hear you''re running it by them.

It''s hard to envision why they''d grant permission for this, because if they thought about it, doing so would further encourage dealers/cutters/vendors to circumvent paying AGS for lab reports and yet using the AGS reputation/name to sell stones. That decision would seem akin to shooting themselves in the foot.

Which is why it is only an estimate. If/once we obtain membership I''d have to weigh whether I wanted to remove that term.

Covered previously - unless the software grants the right to use it or its results publicly (which Neil says it doesn''t), it would appear you don''t have the right to give an ESTIMATE either.

From the nomenclature I have read that accompanies the software I''m not breaking any rules I am aware of. I''m doing what this trade has always done with lab equipment they''ve acquired. Estimate grades. I''m not making unauthorized copies (Microsoft analogy) or using it in a deceptive/unethical way whatsoever.

Refer to above....if the agreement isn''t structured as "any use is OK unless it says it''s not here", then the problem is how you''re reading it. If you''re reading with a mistaken presumption that it has to say "you cannot do this", you''re reading from a faulty assumption.

No no. That is NOT what I am doing. Websites that rip off my images have not paid for the right to use them. I have paid for the right to use the software in my work and agreed to the conditions set forth in the provided documentation. That is a huge difference.
Two things here.....above, in response to a paragraph where I specifically if you paid for the software, you replied that you "acquired" it. In this last comment, you said you''ve paid for "software in my work". Since "software in my work" might not necessarily mean the PGS software because it''s not specified, I''ll ask it again for clarity: Did you *purchase* the PGS software or otherwise pay for it? If you did, you purchased the right to use it ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC WAYS GRANTED BY THE ACCOMPANYING LICENSE.

It grants the right for AGS members to use PGS software to assign a grade. If it doesn''t also expressly grant the right to members AND non-members of AGS to use it to ESTIMATE or predict an AGS cut grade, then that right hasn''t been granted.

My mom''s mantra was "unless I''ve said you can do something, assume that you can''t." It''s good advice, Rhino. Because of it, I never took her car and then later said "well, you never said I couldn''t take it to Boston. Since you didn''t say it wasn''t ok, it must be ok."

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I don''t think the medical analogy works at all...too large a knowledge gap between a doctor and a technician (about 6 extra years of schooling, to begin with; and the HIPPA laws are not applicable to all workplaces). I think I have a better one. I occasionally do private reading evaluations and tutor dyslexic children. I am qualified to give and interpret the tests that I give, but technically, a psychologist is qualified to officially diagnose dyslexia. So in my evaluation reports, I do not give a formal diagnosis of dyslexia, but I DO say that the child exhibits symptoms of dyslexia including xxxxx. I have the expertise to know if a child has dyslexia and I also know what to tell the parents to do about it. But I do not have a post-graduate psychology degree which would allow me to give a formal, medical diagnosis. And a formal medical diagnosis is simply not necessary in most cases.

I see absolutely no difference in me doing this and Jonathan, with his years of training and experience, not to mention equipment, giving his ESTIMATE of what another lab would grade a stone. A GIA stone with all the extra information does not NEED to be sent to AGS. If one has a reasonably high expectation that the stone would rate an AGS0, then that is enough for most people who want a stone that would meet the standards from both labs.

Where there would be an ethics problem would be if Jonathan directly said a stone IS AGS0 when it is not AGS graded. But he has every right to give his professional opinion as an experienced jeweler who deals with diamonds everyday as to what grade he believes a stone with certain characteristics might receive from any given lab just as I can state that a child has characteristics of dyslexia.

 

[RockDoc]

ALJ



HERE IS A PASTE OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT

Note Paragraphs 7,8,9,10,11,13 which reaonsably limit what can be done with the software, and who's legal responsibility it is.

Rockdoc


END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
AGS PERFORMANCE GRADING SOFTWARE ™
IMPORTANT! This interactive software tool known as the AGS PERFORMANCE GRADING SOFTWARE, and any technical and operating documentation files accompanying or relating thereto, as the same may be modified, enhanced, upgraded, improved or changed from time to time (collectively, the “Software”), that you seek to use is licensed only on the condition that you agree with AGS Advanced Instruments Division (“AID”) to the terms and conditions set forth below.
PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THIS END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT (THIS “AGREEMENT”). IF YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU SHOULD SELECT "I AGREE" AT WHICH TIME YOU MAY USE THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU SHOULD SELECT "I DISAGREE," PROMPTLY EXIT THIS PAGE AND NOT USE THE SOFTWARE.
1. License. AID hereby grants you a non-exclusive, limited, and non-transferable/non-sublicensable license to install and use one (1) copy of the Software on a single personal computer; provided, however, that the Software may only be run or otherwise used on a personal computer equipped with the hardware key supplied with the Software (the “Hardware Key”). The Software shall be used solely for your internal business purposes and activities and to process internal information. The Software is licensed to you in machine-readable, executable code form only. Any other use of the Software by any person, business, corporation, government organization or any other entity is strictly forbidden and is a violation of this Agreement.
2. Term and Renewal. This Agreement and the license granted herein will be effective on the date that the Software is installed on your computer and shall continue for a period of one (1) year. Following such one-year period, a software disabling device will be triggered and you will not be able to use the Software unless you purchase a new Hardware Key and Software license from AID or its licensors.
3. Ownership. The Software, any program developed or produced using the Software, and the patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and all other intellectual property contained therein, are and shall remain the sole and exclusive property of AID and its licensors. All rights not expressly granted to you in this Agreement are reserved by AID and its licensors.
4. Copyright and Trademark. The Software contains material that is protected by United States Copyright Law and trade secret law, and by international treaty provisions. You may not remove any proprietary notice from any copy of the Software. All marks, logos, trade dress and other brand designations used on or in connection with the Software are the trademarks of AID or its licensors. No right, license, or interest to such trademarks is granted under this Agreement, and you will not assert any such right, license or interest to any such trademarks
5. Restrictions. You may not make copies of the Software, other than a single copy of the Software for archival or backup purposes, so long as each copy of the Software is used on only one (1) personal computer. You shall not: (a) reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software, or attempt to create the source code from the object code of the Software, (b) transfer or make available the Software to any other party, (c) use the Software outside the country of acquisition, (d) permit or authorize access to, or disclosure of, the Software to any third party, (e) use the Software for timeshare, service bureau or similar purposes, (f) circumvent operation of the accompanying Hardware Key or any other from of protection employed by the Software, or (g) use the Software to process information of any person or entity other than your business.
6. Confidentiality. You acknowledge that the Software contains proprietary trade secrets of AID and its licensors and you hereby agree to maintain the confidentiality of the Software using at least as great a degree of care as you use to maintain the confidentiality of your own most confidential information, and not to divulge such confidential information to third parties. You agree to reasonably communicate the terms and conditions of this Agreement to those persons who come into contact with the Software, and to use reasonable best efforts to ensure their compliance with this Agreement. You acknowledge that any unauthorized use or disclosure of such confidential information would cause irreparable harm to AID and its licensors.
7. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. ANY USE BY YOU OF THE SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR OWN RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY, AND YOU ASSUME ALL RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY AS TO THE SELECTION, USE, PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY OF THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INTERRUPTIONS, DOWN TIME OR DELAYS. AID AND ITS LICENSORS MAKE NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND ANY STATEMENTS OR REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY ANY OTHER PERSON OR FIRM ARE VOID. THE SOFTWARE IS LICENSED “AS IS” AND “WITH ALL FAULTS”. AID AND ITS LICENSORS DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE SOFTWARE IS FREE FROM ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT IT IS NON-INFRINGING, OR THAT IT WILL MEET YOUR PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS.
8. Limitation of Liability. IN NO EVENT WILL AID OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS, LOSS OF PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, OR LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY OTHER PARTY, EVEN IF AID HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. In no event will AID’s or its licensors’ liability to you, whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise, exceed the amount paid by you for the Software.
9. Disclaimers. The effectiveness and operation of the Software is contingent upon factors that include, but are not limited to the: (i) calibration and condition of the non-contact measuring device used in connection with tracing and grading a diamond, (ii) ability and skills of the user or operator of the Software, (iii) preparation of the subject diamond, (iv) operating system and condition of your computer(s), (v) connection bandwidth, and (vi) user volume and system demand.
10. Certification. The results published in this Software are for your internal business use only and do not imply certification of a diamond by AID or any of its officers, employees, agent, subsidiaries or affiliates. Certification can only be obtained by appropriately processing a diamond with the American Gem Society Laboratory.
11. End User Data. You agree that all information, data, text, postings and/or other communications (collectively, “End User Data”) entered into the Software are your sole responsibility, and that you are solely responsible for the accuracy, reliability and quality of such End User Data. Under no circumstances will AID or its licensors be liable in any way for any End User Data entered into the Software, or the accuracy, reliability or quality of such End User Data.
12. Loss of Hardware Key. You understand that in order to use the Software on your computer you must use the Hardware Key that accompanies the Software. You agree that the safekeeping of the Hardware Key is your responsibility and that AID has no responsibility to replace a damaged, lost, stolen or destroyed Hardware Key.
13. Indemnification. You agree to defend, indemnify and hold AID, and AID’s directors, officers, shareholders, members, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, subsidiaries and affiliates, and their predecessors, successors and assigns, harmless from and against any and all losses, damages, liabilities and costs arising out of or relating to any violation of this Agreement or any activity relating to your use of the Software.
14. Export Restrictions. This Agreement is expressly made subject to any laws, regulations, orders or other restrictions on the export from the United States of America of the Software or information about such Software that may be imposed from time to time by the Government of the United States of America. You shall not export the Software or information about the Software without consent of AID and compliance with such laws, regulations, orders or other restrictions.
15. Equipment. You are solely responsible for acquiring, installing, operating and maintaining the equipment, operating system and software that is necessary to utilize the Software, and failure to do so could cause the Software to work improperly or not work at all.
16. Governing Law. ANY ACTION RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE GOVERNED BY NEVADA, U.S.A. LAW AND CONTROLLING U.S. FEDERAL LAW. NO CHOICE OF LAW RULES OF ANY JURISDICTION WILL APPLY. YOU HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY CONSENT TO SUBMIT TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, LOCATED IN CLARK COUNTY (“FORUM”) FOR ANY ACTIONS, SUITS OR PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY (AND YOU AGREE NOT TO COMMENCE ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING RELATING THERETO EXCEPT IN SUCH FORUM), AND FURTHER AGREE THAT SERVICE OF ANY PROCESS, SUMMONS, NOTICE OR DOCUMENT BY U.S. REGISTERED MAIL TO YOU SHALL BE EFFECTIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT AGAINST YOU IN THE FORUM. YOU HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE VENUE OF ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT IN THE FORUM, AND IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVE AND AGREE NOT TO PLEAD OR CLAIM THAT ANY SUCH ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN THE FORUM HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN AN INCONVENIENT FORUM. IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS LICENSE IS NOT ENFORCEABLE, IT WILL BE SEVERED FROM THIS LICENSE AND THE REMAINDER WILL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
17. General. If any part of this Agreement is found invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be interpreted so as to reasonably effect the intention of the parties. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.

 

[aljdewey]

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.

You don''t see the difference because you can''t or won''t appreciate the difference between the use of word ''ideal'' in the generic sense meaning well-cut and the use of "AGS Ideal" meaning "representing properties that would achieve AGS''s highest cut grade". Until you can appreciate that difference, it''s not going to make sense to you.

Until you accept that representing the MAKE of a stone isn''t the same as estimating a cut GRADE from a specific lab, it''s not going to make sense to you.

Below is the information for an ES stone with a GIA grading report. Read it carefully, DS......where does it say what GRADE the stone is given? It doesn''t. "Round Ideal Cut" is listed as a SHAPE.....just as asscher is a shape, oval is a shape, etc. In this use, "round ideal cut" listed as the shape is to help people narrow down that they want a top-make round instead of just any old round.

Rhino isn''t doing that. He''s predicting what cut GRADE a specific lab (AGS or GIA) will assign to a stone. He''s using the AGS name to suggest a level of fitness for a GIA stone, and he''s using the GIA name to suggest a level of fitness for an AGS stone.

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/17/2006 3:21:42 PM
Author: 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.

Yes. If Labs( or anybody other) use term "Ideal" for CUT GRADE:
1)They stop developing( increasing) diamond market.
2) They mislead consumers

 

[Serg]

“AGS Ideal” is more close to “AGS best choice” than to “Ideal”

 

[aljdewey]

HERE IS A PASTE OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT - Thanks, Rock.
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
AGS PERFORMANCE GRADING SOFTWARE ™

Ok, Jon...here are your potential problems:
1. License. AID hereby grants you a non-exclusive, limited, and non-transferable/non-sublicensable license to install and use one (1) copy of the Software on a single personal computer; provided, however, that the Software may only be run or otherwise used on a personal computer equipped with the hardware key supplied with the Software (the “Hardware Key”). The Software shall be used solely for your internal business purposes and activities and to process internal information. Internal - to be used within your organization. Presumably, this means to help the GOG staff assess the potential make of the stones for sorting or other purposes. EXTERNAL facing websites that sell to clients....not typically considered "internal".

The Software is licensed to you in machine-readable, executable code form only. Any other use of the Software by any person, business, corporation, government organization or any other entity is strictly forbidden and is a violation of this Agreement. This means NO other use is ok...it''s forbidden and violates the agreement.

2. Term and Renewal. This Agreement and the license granted herein will be effective on the date that the Software is installed on your computer and shall continue for a period of one (1) year. Following such one-year period, a software disabling device will be triggered and you will not be able to use the Software unless you purchase a new Hardware Key and Software license from AID or its licensors.
3. Ownership. The Software, any program developed or produced using the Software, and the patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and all other intellectual property contained therein, are and shall remain the sole and exclusive property of AID and its licensors. All rights not expressly granted to you in this Agreement are reserved by AID and its licensors.

This paragraph means you didn''t buy the software, you bought (if you paid for it) the right to USE it. And, any right NOT EXPRESSLY GRANTED to you IN THIS AGREEMENT (i.e. the right to communicate results to external customers, the right to estimate a cut grade to external customers, etc.) is reserved by AID.....as in you aren''t allowed to do it.

4. Copyright and Trademark. The Software contains material that is protected by United States Copyright Law and trade secret law, and by international treaty provisions. You may not remove any proprietary notice from any copy of the Software. All marks, logos, trade dress and other brand designations used on or in connection with the Software are the trademarks of AID or its licensors. No right, license, or interest to such trademarks is granted under this Agreement, and you will not assert any such right, license or interest to any such trademarks

Brand designations (such as "AGS0 Ideal" expressed as a cut grade) are trademarks, and it specifies there is no right or license to use the trademarks.

5. Restrictions. You may not make copies of the Software, other than a single copy of the Software for archival or backup purposes, so long as each copy of the Software is used on only one (1) personal computer. You shall not: (a) reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile the Software, or attempt to create the source code from the object code of the Software, (b) transfer or make available the Software to any other party, (c) use the Software outside the country of acquisition, (d) permit or authorize access to, or disclosure of, the Software to any third party, (e) use the Software for timeshare, service bureau or similar purposes, (f) circumvent operation of the accompanying Hardware Key or any other from of protection employed by the Software, or (g) use the Software to process information of any person or entity other than your business.

6. Confidentiality. You acknowledge that the Software contains proprietary trade secrets of AID and its licensors and you hereby agree to maintain the confidentiality of the Software using at least as great a degree of care as you use to maintain the confidentiality of your own most confidential information, and not to divulge such confidential information to third parties. You agree to reasonably communicate the terms and conditions of this Agreement to those persons who come into contact with the Software, and to use reasonable best efforts to ensure their compliance with this Agreement. You acknowledge that any unauthorized use or disclosure of such confidential information would cause irreparable harm to AID and its licensors.

I would imagine this could easily include divulging results provided by the software....which you''ve said you are using to estimate/predict AGS cut grades on GIA stones.

7. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. ANY USE BY YOU OF THE SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR OWN RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY, AND YOU ASSUME ALL RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY AS TO THE SELECTION, USE, PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY OF THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INTERRUPTIONS, DOWN TIME OR DELAYS. AID AND ITS LICENSORS MAKE NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND ANY STATEMENTS OR REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY ANY OTHER PERSON OR FIRM ARE VOID. THE SOFTWARE IS LICENSED “AS IS” AND “WITH ALL FAULTS”. AID AND ITS LICENSORS DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE SOFTWARE IS FREE FROM ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT IT IS NON-INFRINGING, OR THAT IT WILL MEET YOUR PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS.

All of this is meant to say "if the software blows up your machine, not our fault. If interruptions mean that you can''t use it at the time you wish to and it causes you potential loss, not our fault. If it returns a bogus result, not our fault."

8. Limitation of Liability. IN NO EVENT WILL AID OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS, LOSS OF PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, OR LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY OTHER PARTY, EVEN IF AID HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. In no event will AID’s or its licensors’ liability to you, whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise, exceed the amount paid by you for the Software.

This outlines that they can''t be hold liable for damages of any kind in excess of the value you paid for the use of the software. If you paid $100 to use it, they can''t be held liable for more than $100.

9. Disclaimers. The effectiveness and operation of the Software is contingent upon factors that include, but are not limited to the: (i) calibration and condition of the non-contact measuring device used in connection with tracing and grading a diamond, (ii) ability and skills of the user or operator of the Software, (iii) preparation of the subject diamond, (iv) operating system and condition of your computer(s), (v) connection bandwidth, and (vi) user volume and system demand.

This means that the integrity of the results produced by the software can be negatively influenced by several factors including user error, your computer system, how many others are trying to use the system at the same time, etc.


10. Certification. The results published in this Software are for your internal business use only and do not imply certification of a diamond by AID or any of its officers, employees, agent, subsidiaries or affiliates. Certification can only be obtained by appropriately processing a diamond with the American Gem Society Laboratory.

Here''s a bugaboo The RESULTS generated are for internal business use only. If the software tells you that Diamond A would achieve an AGS0 grade, that result can be used internally (i.e. telling Chas or Kristen)....but you likely can''t tell an EXTERNAL customer.

11. End User Data. You agree that all information, data, text, postings and/or other communications (collectively, “End User Data”) entered into the Software are your sole responsibility, and that you are solely responsible for the accuracy, reliability and quality of such End User Data. Under no circumstances will AID or its licensors be liable in any way for any End User Data entered into the Software, or the accuracy, reliability or quality of such End User Data.

12. Loss of Hardware Key. You understand that in order to use the Software on your computer you must use the Hardware Key that accompanies the Software. You agree that the safekeeping of the Hardware Key is your responsibility and that AID has no responsibility to replace a damaged, lost, stolen or destroyed Hardware Key.

13. Indemnification. You agree to defend, indemnify and hold AID, and AID’s directors, officers, shareholders, members, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, subsidiaries and affiliates, and their predecessors, successors and assigns, harmless from and against any and all losses, damages, liabilities and costs arising out of or relating to any violation of this Agreement or any activity relating to your use of the Software.

14. Export Restrictions. This Agreement is expressly made subject to any laws, regulations, orders or other restrictions on the export from the United States of America of the Software or information about such Software that may be imposed from time to time by the Government of the United States of America. You shall not export the Software or information about the Software without consent of AID and compliance with such laws, regulations, orders or other restrictions.

15. Equipment. You are solely responsible for acquiring, installing, operating and maintaining the equipment, operating system and software that is necessary to utilize the Software, and failure to do so could cause the Software to work improperly or not work at all.

16. Governing Law. ANY ACTION RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE GOVERNED BY NEVADA, U.S.A. LAW AND CONTROLLING U.S. FEDERAL LAW. NO CHOICE OF LAW RULES OF ANY JURISDICTION WILL APPLY. YOU HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY CONSENT TO SUBMIT TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, LOCATED IN CLARK COUNTY (“FORUM”) FOR ANY ACTIONS, SUITS OR PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY (AND YOU AGREE NOT TO COMMENCE ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING RELATING THERETO EXCEPT IN SUCH FORUM), AND FURTHER AGREE THAT SERVICE OF ANY PROCESS, SUMMONS, NOTICE OR DOCUMENT BY U.S. REGISTERED MAIL TO YOU SHALL BE EFFECTIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS FOR ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT AGAINST YOU IN THE FORUM. YOU HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE VENUE OF ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT IN THE FORUM, AND IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVE AND AGREE NOT TO PLEAD OR CLAIM THAT ANY SUCH ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN THE FORUM HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN AN INCONVENIENT FORUM. IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS LICENSE IS NOT ENFORCEABLE, IT WILL BE SEVERED FROM THIS LICENSE AND THE REMAINDER WILL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.

17. General. If any part of this Agreement is found invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall be interpreted so as to reasonably effect the intention of the parties. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/17/2006 10:01:17 PM
Author: mrssalvo

looks like GOG already made the changes and it''s pretty clear to me..

That''s absolutely an improvement toward the issue of being potentially misleading.

I''d still work on the sticky issue using the PGS software in a way that may not be licensed if I were in your position.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/17/2006 10:05:06 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 9/17/2006 10:01:17 PM
Author: mrssalvo
looks like GOG already made the changes and it''s pretty clear to me..

Thank you Rhino

No prob. It''s all good man.

Now ... who will join me in a frosty one and who brought the pie?

If nobody has I really like Julie N''s new avatar.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/18/2006 1:21:26 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 9/17/2006 10:05:06 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 9/17/2006 10:01:17 PM
Author: mrssalvo
looks like GOG already made the changes and it''s pretty clear to me..

Thank you Rhino

No prob. It''s all good man.

Now ... who will join me in a frosty one and who brought the pie?

If nobody has I really like Julie N''s new avatar.

Paul best bring the beer (US and Oz stuff is no good).
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=143493 the pies are already there mate

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/18/2006 1:18:24 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/17/2006 10:01:17 PM
Author: mrssalvo

looks like GOG already made the changes and it''s pretty clear to me..

That''s absolutely an improvement toward the issue of being potentially misleading.

I''d still work on the sticky issue using the PGS software in a way that may not be licensed if I were in your position.

I will Alj. I''ll never be closed minded to reasonable suggestions. As I read through Rock''s last post listing the details of the licence, I don''t see anything in the contract I am breaking and the final changes have been done on my site according to the suggestions of everyone''s input here. I''ll still see what AGS AID has to say and if any further changes are required I will of course comply but I think we can move on from this now although I''m sure other/more conversations will arise out of this thread.

Night night,

 

[RockDoc]

You''re wecome ALJ

Thought you''d get a kick out of being able to see it and comment on its contents, and others seeing the exact language..



Rockdoc

 

[Serg]

6. Confidentiality. You acknowledge that the Software contains proprietary trade secrets of AID and its licensors and you hereby agree to maintain the confidentiality of the Software using at least as great a degree of care as you use to maintain the confidentiality of your own most confidential information, and not to divulge such confidential information to third parties. You agree to reasonably communicate the terms and conditions of this Agreement to those persons who come into contact with the Software, and to use reasonable best efforts to ensure their compliance with this Agreement. You acknowledge that any unauthorized use or disclosure of such confidential information would cause irreparable harm to AID and its licensors.

ALJ: I would imagine this could easily include divulging results provided by the software....which you've said you are using to estimate/predict AGS cut grades on GIA stones.

I do not see any conflict to use PGS for ""GIA stones".
BTW . GIA has not stones

I am agree with other comments of the PGS license . Key comment is Internal using only.