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

[Small]

Date: 9/15/2006 5:12:41 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/15/2006 4:19:07 PM
Author: Rhino

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

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

Yes and no.

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

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

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

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

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

I know your intent is good

, but it could reflect on you in a way you wouldn''t want it to.

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

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

WOW...long, long, long.
This was by far the best comment of what I''ve felt going to the GOG website. I see no reason personally (as an educated consumer but by no means an expert

) to have both on there. I would just like to know GIA or AGS and the specifics. I''m just offering up an opinion...I usually don''t even chime in to these very ''over my head'' debates but I found this one to be of interest as I''ve often thought to myself ''why does he have both on there when it''s graded by GIA." It was just an extra piece of info that was not needed in order to make a decision. Unless graded by AGS, I couldn''t care less what they would give it because it''s unknown for certain until it''s actually sent. Again...just an honest opinion from a person who comes to this site regularly and likes to educate herself. I have my diamond cut by Paul, sold by Wink so I''m in no way vested in GOG or WF which seems to be what one vs the other has on their website.
Good to see that Jonathan heeded some of the advice and has started to make the changes. I think it can avoid confusion in the future and personally find it to be a change in the right direction

Great job Alj for all the comments. I really enjoyed reading your perspective and agreed 100%

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/18/2006 1:55:17 AM
Author: 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.

It would be stating

"OctoNus Cut grade Excellent 0.99"

Or

"Ideal-Scope Cut grade Very Good"

Listing the OctoNus data or Ideal-scope photo is one thing, but assuming OctoNus data or is pic is a grading system by itself is not OK (in my opinion)

 

[Serg]

Garry,

Please explain your last post. I can not understand anything.
OctoNus has not a cut grade system

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Exactly.
Neither does AGS PGS software.
It is one compnent only

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/18/2006 1:05:59 AM
Author: 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.

As a software developer who has coded commercial software I can tell ya that your interpretation of the licence is very interesting but wrong.
Each of those phrases have specific legal meaning and they are not what you think they are.

btw this is not legal advice consult an attorney licenced in your state for specific legal advise blah blaah blah.

"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 the licence holder or any other party can not legally decompile and/or directly reverse engineer the software or make any changes to the executable such as removing whatever copy/run time protection it has.
IE: you have not licensed the source code only the right to run the software in simple English.



internal use only: does not mean you cant share the results it means you can only use the softare in your business that has licenced the software. External use would be letting xyz diamonds come over and use it.

It is standard boilerplate with specific meaning when used in this context.
The same with the rest of it.

 

[Serg]

re: internal use only: does not mean you cant share the results it means you can only use the softare in your business that has licenced the software. External use would be letting xyz diamonds come over and use it.

It is standard boilerplate with specific meaning when used in this context.
The same with the rest of it.


It is interesting to receive AGS interpretation of PGS license.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/17/2006 4:55:24 PM
Author: 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 think the issue of polish is a legacy of the long standard AGS 0 to 10 grading system. 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. Could that be an understatement.

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

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

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

Since this thread''s start was based upon my objections to the presentations of some other companies, and since the last pages seemed to turn into another round of Rhino-bashing, I would like to clarify my perception of the subject.

If any vendor starts presenting stones as ideal or, even worse, AGS-ideal, while these stones are clearly not up to par with even the minimum requirements, I reserve the right to openly question the validity of their presentation. Let me tell you that I am less touchy in the subject of rounds, where the term ''ideal'' might have an historic different and broader meaning, but definitely in the case of princess-cuts, with their greatly varying cut-qualities, I will be easily stepped on my toes.

Observing Jonathan''s openness in this thread, and amazed by the speed, with which he adjusted certain presentations on his website, I can only applaud this.

Even more, when he is estimating a grade, even in writing on his site, I trust his professionalism and his judgment to the extent, that his estimate will always be incredibly pretty well close to the official final grade. In any case, knowing him personally, I am sure that a possible error in his estimate would be indeed an error, and not an intentional mis-representation.

Whether it is wise to keep on having estimates on his website, which might cause extra heat, is a totally different question. In the end, that is only GOG''s internal decision.

I just wanted to make clear that when I was criticizing certain presentations, I was never directly attacking GOG, and furthermore, I am amazed by the quick changes made to his site.

Live long,

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/17/2006 12:41:24 PM
Author: aljdewey


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alj, thanks for your comments, and the fact that you don''t feel this way. I know not everyone does, if they did, I''d have taken my lowly GIA and sunk off into the sunset.

I agree in that there are times when strictly staying with AGS is the way to go for some, and I honestly have no problem with that. If the need ever arose, I would gladly give the same advice. But unfortunately, that''s not the scenario I was referring to. This hasn''t happened a lot, but it has happened. There are some who just plain think the sun rises and sets with AGS, and I actually don''t even have a problem with that. To each his own. What irks me no end is when they want to instill that on some noob just coming on board. There ARE excellent GIA stones out there, I OWN one, as does Mara, and who knows who else. I hate to think of this type of stone being passed up because someone doesn''t know any better and has received this biased advice. And evidently I and ds aren''t the only ones who have noticed, since Jon commented on the fact that he''s been contacted by many on this.

As if this wasn''t bad enough, there was a somewhat recent thread on here that involved this basic discussion of GIA vs. AGS. I will not name names, but an associate of a very respected vendor on here prefaced an analogy with the statement that his preceding comment didn''t mean GIA stones weren''t as beautiful as AGS stones, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, moreless. Then went on in his analogy to liken GIA stones to Ford, whereas AGS were to BMW. I found this not only insulting, but extremely unprofessional.

I am NOT saying all this to start trouble, I JUST want people to use a little discretion in their posts. There are possibly thousands of people that will read the threads on here, let''s not misinform/scare/offend them....

And I apologize to anyone who feels I''m going off topic with this, but I know first hand how frustrating it is to read a thread, see something in it you want to know about addressed, but never finished.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/17/2006 3:39:03 PM
Author: 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.

You''re welcome, it was my pleasure.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/18/2006 1:55:17 AM
Author: 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 am agree with other comments of the PGS license . Key comment is Internal using only.

Serg, completely agree. I nearly pointed out that one as well, but I didn''t because I could easily see where Rhino would likely be confused about what the confidentiality applies to (i.e. I could see him trying to argue the difference between data and results, and that would be completely missing the point.)

Considering that he''s not grasping the very direct language in the license that says "any other use is strictly forbidden", I thought the confidentiality distinction was just beyond what I could explain to him.

But you''re absolutely right.......the confidentiality piece applies, too. In layman''s terms, you aren''t supposed to divulge details or information from the software to third-parties (which include potential external customers).

 

[oldminer]

My take on this is that while there may be a "right" and a "wrong" to this matter, it is now out in the grasp of folks who will use the software and say what they will regardless of restrictions. This will include those who will do their very best to use the software and its results correctly and also in the hands of those who will misuse the software and its results to bad extremes.

The arguments are just about as pointless as insisting that Grading Reports made by labs are not "Certs". Certs are a term that is in common use and it is way too late to do much about it except complain.

If the conclusions drawn by filling in the blanks of the software are accurate, then what harm is being done in sharing this information? What harm is done by keeping correct information a secret? If improper use of the software leads to incorrect results, what safeguards exist? Who is responsible for misuse?

If a lab is looking to create International standards, then it must allow fair use of its tools to measure to these standards. It needs to allow reporting of results when applied correctly and hold misuser's feet to a hot fire when they abuse the system. If the software does not work, then there may be good reason to say, don't publish the results. Is this the case? Do these standards give correct results or incorrect results? That's a real issue, isn't it?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/18/2006 6:59:02 AM
Author: Serg

re: internal use only: does not mean you cant share the results it means you can only use the softare in your business that has licenced the software. External use would be letting xyz diamonds come over and use it.

Actually, the license is a bit ambiguous in that it doesn''t not provide a definition of "internal use". As such, it could be your interpretation above, but I''d tend to disagree.

Letting XYZ diamonds come over to use it would breach the "who" part of the grant of the license. License grants the right to YOU (meaning the purchaser) to use it.....and because a non-employee of the business isn''t part of your "internal" use, he can''t use it because the rights limit WHO can use it.

Internal use can also speak to HOW the rights are used...i.e. we grant you the right do THIS and THIS with it, but not THIS.



And, lest you forget, it also in item 10 that the RESULTS are for internal use only.....

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/18/2006 10:03:36 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/18/2006 6:59:02 AM
Author: Serg


re: internal use only: does not mean you cant share the results it means you can only use the softare in your business that has licenced the software. External use would be letting xyz diamonds come over and use it.

Actually, the license is a bit ambiguous in that it doesn''t not provide a definition of ''internal use''. As such, it could be your interpretation above, but I''d tend to disagree.

Letting XYZ diamonds come over to use it would breach the ''who'' part of the grant of the license. License grants the right to YOU (meaning the purchaser) to use it.....and because a non-employee of the business isn''t part of your ''internal'' use, he can''t use it because the rights limit WHO can use it.

Internal use can also speak to HOW the rights are used...i.e. we grant you the right do THIS and THIS with it, but not THIS.



And, lest you forget, it also in item 10 that the RESULTS are for internal use only.....

I''m not going to argue with you so i''m going to leave it at this:
Contracts are based on state case law and vary state to state when there is enough case law in enough states in general the rest of the states courts generally accept it.
At that point terms and phrases come into general legal use with specific legal meaning. They become boilerplate.
internal use clauses are one such as is the no source code phrase.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/18/2006 3:24:15 AM
Author: strmrdr

As a software developer who has coded commercial software I can tell ya that your interpretation of the licence is very interesting but wrong.
Each of those phrases have specific legal meaning and they are not what you think they are.

btw this is not legal advice consult an attorney licenced in your state for specific legal advise blah blaah blah.

''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 the licence holder or any other party can not legally decompile and/or directly reverse engineer the software or make any changes to the executable such as removing whatever copy/run time protection it has.

Storm: Same disclaimer...this isn''t legal advice consult an attorney blah blah blah.....

I think what you''re implying is covered in #5 Restrictions.

internal use only: does not mean you cant share the results it means you can only use the softare in your business that has licenced the software. External use would be letting xyz diamonds come over and use it.

Again, covered in #5 ""You may not.....(d) permit or authorize access to, or disclosure of, the Software to any third party".

Actually, since the license lacks a contractual definition for "internal use", it could be either interpretation. Internal use could mean either 1) who''s allowed to use it, or 2) how they are allowed to use it.

In the license my company grants, "internal use" is contractually defined as "ordinary business purposes of licensee that don''t include bulk or systematic distributions outside the organization", and the intent of that language is ''you can''t share this outside the company''.....not just the software, but the information it provides/contains.

Internal use can also mean "what you do with it". Even if you only let your employees use the software, if they use it in a way that breaches the license (i.e. potentially distributing results outside the organization or breaching the confidentiality provisions), that may breach the "how" part.
The license really should contain a definition of "internal use", but I can think of one possible reason it doesn''t. Several here have said that the two requirements for assigning an AGS grade are 1) has to be an AGS member, and 2) has to use the PGS software.

Since I don''t see any language in the agreement that says only an AGS member can use the software to assign a grade, it leads me to think the software was only intended for distribution to AGS members....at least originally. If so, there would be no need for a definition of "internal use" because only AGS members would have the software, and they would be allowed to communicate results externally.

 

[Serg]

Blue Nile Signature Ideal cut: Represents roughly the top 1% of diamond quality based on cut. The highest grades of polish and symmetry allow it to reflect even more light than the standard ideal cut. Our most brilliant cut.

Ideal cut: Represents roughly the top 3% of diamond quality based on cut. Reflects nearly all light that enters the diamond. An exquisite and rare cut.

Very good cut: Represents roughly the top 15% of diamond quality based on cut. Reflects nearly as much light as the ideal cut, but for a lower price.

Good cut: Represents roughly the top 25% of diamond quality based on cut. Reflects most light that enters. Much less expensive than a very good cut.

Fair cut: Represents roughly the top 35% of diamond quality based on cut. Still a quality diamond, but a fair cut will not be as brilliant as a good cut.

Poor cut: This includes all diamonds that do not meet the performance standards of a fair cut. These diamonds are generally deep and narrow or shallow and wide and tend to lose most of the light out the sides and bottom. Blue Nile does not carry diamonds with cut grades of poor.

http://www.bluenile.com/diamond_cut.asp?track=row_mod1&elem=text

 

[Serg]

"How Does Blue Nile Grade Diamond Cut?
Both the GIA and AGSL use numerous criteria to grade diamond cut. When a GIA or AGSL cut grade is not available, Blue Nile provides a cut grade that allows you to compare diamonds using consistent criteria. Learn how we determine cut grade. "

 

[aljdewey]

Paul: Let me tell you that I am less touchy in the subject of rounds, where the term ''ideal'' might have an historic different and broader meaning, but definitely in the case of princess-cuts, with their greatly varying cut-qualities, I will be easily stepped on my toes.

I can understand this, Paul; you are being most "stepped on" by what is nearest and dearest to you personally, which is princess. However, for those whose bread-and-butter is competing in the round, fine-make arena, they would be more sensitive on the rounds.

Paul: Even more, when he is estimating a grade, even in writing on his site, I trust his professionalism and his judgment to the extent, that his estimate will always be incredibly pretty well close to the official final grade. In any case, knowing him personally, I am sure that a possible error in his estimate would be indeed an error, and not an intentional mis-representation.

Totally agree....and I said this early on in the thread. I trust that he''s exceptionally skilled enough to offer an educated, dependable opinion that will reasonably agree with an official grade. My comments weren''t about his skill. I would agree (and said so) that I believed any possible error would be unintentional.

Paul: Whether it is wise to keep on having estimates on his website, which might cause extra heat, is a totally different question. In the end, that is only GOG''s internal decision. I just wanted to make clear that when I was criticizing certain presentations, I was never directly attacking GOG, and furthermore, I am amazed by the quick changes made to his site.

Similarly, for my part, I wasn''t directly attacking GOG either. I think (and said) that I believe his intentions are well-founded; that I believe he is trying to *help* his customers in providing every assurance he can to instill confidence in the quality of the stones they are considering.

The thread evolved into two different veins. One was whether or not using language could unintentionally cause confusion and potentially misrepresent a product. And I agree that Jonathan made very fast remedy on this, which further reinforces my perception that his intentions were indeed nothing but good.

The other was whether or not it''s permissible for *anyone* (not just Rhino) to use PGS software in way he''s described using it. This really is AGS'' worry since they are the licensor.

Despite Storm''s assertion, there can be more than one legal meaning for "internal purposes." Even the few industry professionals who participate here don''t seem to agree on a single interpretation of the license grant, and that ambiguity could hurt folks down the line. Because I KNOW his intentions are good, and I wouldn''t want to see that ambiguity hurt him down the line, I suggested (not as legal advice) that he could protect himself from that ambiguity and easily coer his bases. by simply getting permission for his specific use.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 9/18/2006 11:47:00 AM
Author: aljdewey

Paul: Let me tell you that I am less touchy in the subject of rounds, where the term ''ideal'' might have an historic different and broader meaning, but definitely in the case of princess-cuts, with their greatly varying cut-qualities, I will be easily stepped on my toes.

I can understand this, Paul; you are being most ''stepped on'' by what is nearest and dearest to you personally, which is princess. However, for those whose bread-and-butter is competing in the round, fine-make arena, they would be more sensitive on the rounds.

Hey Alj,

Most of the times, we think alike. But make no mistake, princess-cuts are what we are exceptional in, but the same thing is actually true for rounds, which still are the bulk and the bread-and-butter of our business.

We could be compared to a winning horse. The public will remember the one race, which we won by 15 lengths, while the nine other races, in which we won by photo-finish are just as important for us.

Live long,

 

[denverappraiser]

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

at the end of the day, it’s not an AGS-0 unless and until AGSL says it is.

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

I stand corrected on my comment above. An AGS-0 is a stone that has been graded by a competent AGS titleholder working in accordance with the AGS diamond grading standards (which includes but is not limited to AGSL).

Here’s standards #1 and #2 of the AGS Diamond Grading Standards. The Diamond Grading Standards is part of the license that AGS members are granted to use the scale to describe things. Abiding by this is part of the rules that all AGS members must agree to abide by as a function of maintaining their membership.

Standard #1:
“Any diamond labeled or described as conforming to an AGS Grade must in fact have been graded while unmounted, in accordance with the Diamond Grading Standards, by a competent AGS titleholder.”
Standard #2:
“Use of the Diamond Grading Standards by members of the Society is voluntary. AGS diamond Grades may be applied to any part or all of a member firm’s diamond stock when graded unmounted. With certain restrictions, AGS Provisional Grades may be applied to mounted diamonds examined for appraisal purposes only.”
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 9/18/2006 12:05:44 PM
Author: denverappraiser

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

<snip> at the end of the day, it’s not an AGS-0 unless and until AGSL says it is.

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

I stand corrected on my comment above. An AGS-0 is a stone that has been graded by a competent AGS titleholder working in accordance with the AGS diamond grading standards (which includes but is not limited to AGSL).

Here’s standards #1 and #2 of the AGS Diamond Grading Standards. The Diamond Grading Standards is part of the license that AGS members are granted to use the scale to describe things. Abiding by this is part of the rules that all AGS members must agree to abide by as a function of maintaining their membership.

Standard #1:
“Any diamond labeled or described as conforming to an AGS Grade must in fact have been graded while unmounted, in accordance with the Diamond Grading Standards, by a competent AGS titleholder.”

Standard #2:
“Use of the Diamond Grading Standards by members of the Society is voluntary. AGS diamond Grades may be applied to any part or all of a member firm’s diamond stock when graded unmounted. With certain restrictions, AGS Provisional Grades may be applied to mounted diamonds examined for appraisal purposes only.”

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

This of course, makes this more ambiguous, as selling the software to a non titleholder makes it sort of useless. So I have to wonder why AGS sold the PGS program to non titleholders/members.

Rockdoc

 

[denverappraiser]

I can see why a manufacturer would be interested in it, even if they can''t use it as a selling tool. I wouldn''t be surprised if Jon is the only non-member retailer who has ever bought it and that they never thought of this scenario. The whole AGS-AID division is new territory. It sounds to me like they need to clarify what is appropriate non-member usage or, if what he''s doing is unacceptable, issue Jon an apology and a refund.

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

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/18/2006 9:25:05 AM
Author: Ellen

What irks me no end is when they want to instill that on some noob just coming on board. There ARE excellent GIA stones out there, I OWN one, as does Mara, and who knows who else. I hate to think of this type of stone being passed up because someone doesn''t know any better and has received this biased advice. And evidently I and ds aren''t the only ones who have noticed, since Jon commented on the fact that he''s been contacted by many on this.

Believe me, I understand you COMPLETELY ---because I have the same bug-a-boo...just related to a different topic. It''s when folks tell noobies not to consider SI2 diamonds for engagement rings!

It''s one thing to state it as a personal preference (and some very conscientious posters here do just that)......that''s FINE. I don''t object to that at all. It''s when then don''t qualify that, and make it sound like a HORRIBLE mistake to even consider SI2 stones.

Plenty of folks here have perfectly eye-clean SI2 stones, so it''s possible.....just as several people have kick-butt GIA stones. BUT, if I knew that the person didn''t enjoy the "thrill of the hunt"---who didn''t want to make a life''s work out of finding an eyeclean SI stone---then I''d absolutely point them to the place where they are most likely to get it (VS2 and above).

I hate to think that someone trying hard to stay in a budget would be scared off SI2 stones and pass by a stone that might give them everything they want or more of what they want for their budget. I hear ya!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/18/2006 2:17:46 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/18/2006 9:25:05 AM
Author: Ellen

What irks me no end is when they want to instill that on some noob just coming on board. There ARE excellent GIA stones out there, I OWN one, as does Mara, and who knows who else. I hate to think of this type of stone being passed up because someone doesn''t know any better and has received this biased advice. And evidently I and ds aren''t the only ones who have noticed, since Jon commented on the fact that he''s been contacted by many on this.

Believe me, I understand you COMPLETELY ---because I have the same bug-a-boo...just related to a different topic. It''s when folks tell noobies not to consider SI2 diamonds for engagement rings!

It''s one thing to state it as a personal preference (and some very conscientious posters here do just that)......that''s FINE. I don''t object to that at all. It''s when then don''t qualify that, and make it sound like a HORRIBLE mistake to even consider SI2 stones.

Plenty of folks here have perfectly eye-clean SI2 stones, so it''s possible.....just as several people have kick-butt GIA stones. BUT, if I knew that the person didn''t enjoy the ''thrill of the hunt''---who didn''t want to make a life''s work out of finding an eyeclean SI stone---then I''d absolutely point them to the place where they are most likely to get it (VS2 and above).

I hate to think that someone trying hard to stay in a budget would be scared off SI2 stones and pass by a stone that might give them everything they want or more of what they want for their budget. I hear ya!

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.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 9/18/2006 2:17:46 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/18/2006 9:25:05 AM

Author: Ellen



What irks me no end is when they want to instill that on some noob just coming on board. There ARE excellent GIA stones out there, I OWN one, as does Mara, and who knows who else. I hate to think of this type of stone being passed up because someone doesn't know any better and has received this biased advice. And evidently I and ds aren't the only ones who have noticed, since Jon commented on the fact that he's been contacted by many on this.

Believe me, I understand you COMPLETELY ---because I have the same bug-a-boo...just related to a different topic. It's when folks tell noobies not to consider SI2 diamonds for engagement rings!


It's one thing to state it as a personal preference (and some very conscientious posters here do just that)......that's FINE. I don't object to that at all. It's when then don't qualify that, and make it sound like a HORRIBLE mistake to even consider SI2 stones.

there was a thread her recently the Fire and ice started complaining that the "ideal" specs diamond folks were making it seem like those are the only beautiful diamonds to be found. if i remember correctly it was said that it's up to those who disagree and who have less the "ideal spec" stones to speak up. I'd guess the same holds true here. it's up to the SI2 to speak up and I personally think they do a pretty darn good job, along with the J crowd. it wouldn't take a newbie to long to hear both opinions.


ETA: it's not the responsibility of consumer to present a fair an balanced opinion whether it be a preference for GIA or AGS or VS over a SI2. I guess it's up to the ones feeling like underdogs to speak the truth as they see it

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/18/2006 9:53:29 AM
Author: oldminer

If the conclusions drawn by filling in the blanks of the software are accurate, then what harm is being done in sharing this information? What harm is done by keeping correct information a secret? If improper use of the software leads to incorrect results, what safeguards exist? Who is responsible for misuse?

If a lab is looking to create International standards, then it must allow fair use of its tools to measure to these standards. It needs to allow reporting of results when applied correctly and hold misuser''s feet to a hot fire when they abuse the system. If the software does not work, then there may be good reason to say, don''t publish the results. Is this the case? Do these standards give correct results or incorrect results? That''s a real issue, isn''t it?

Dave, two things:

What harm is being done? IF your use breaches the confidentiality clause, and IF your use breaches the terms set forth in the license, the harm would be that you''re infringing on the rights of the owner.

Second, it is somewhat ironic that you''d take this "no harm in sharing information" position, because I don''t see that happening with Imagem. Several esteemed industry folks here seem to have repeatedly requested disclosure of information on how Imagem operates (for purposes of peer review), and I''ve seen what I''d consider great reluctance to blithely ''share information'' in that instance.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/18/2006 2:39:42 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

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.

I''m sorry, DS.....but from this statement, I can see that there is no way to explain it to you until you''re able to make the distinction between a generic use of ideal and other uses of ideal. It either resonates with you or it doesn''t, and it would appear that it doesn''t.

I just cannot stomach explaining it again. Let''s just leave it at ''you don''t think they are the same'' and call it a day.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/18/2006 2:45:41 PM
Author: mrssalvo

there was a thread her recently the Fire and ice started complaining that the 'ideal' specs diamond folks were making it seem like those are the only beautiful diamonds to be found. if i remember correctly it was said that it's up to those who disagree and who have less the 'ideal spec' stones to speak up. I'd guess the same holds true here. it's up to the SI2 to speak up and I personally think they do a pretty darn good job, along with the J crowd. it wouldn't take a newbie to long to hear both opinions.

Yep, and that's why I do speak up.....practice what I preach.

And, I didn't say (or even imply) that anyone should change their advice.....just that it bugs me, and yes, I do something about it by replying.

But Mrs. Salvo.....it's an enormous overstatement to insinuate "people are being steered only to AGS0". Untrue. What is more often said is "if it's that important for you to have a stone that fits AGS0, then stick to AGS0 stones and you'll be sure." I don't see anyone saying "oh, you really should only consider AGS0 stones" to people who haven't said AGS0 criteria is important to them. It's limited to those who care about it.

And, to your point above about F&I's post, it wasn't a complaint about AGS0 Ideal....it was ideal in the generic sense. F&I's point was "why steer someone away from a gorgeous stone based on a little scrap of paper? The purists are going overboard". As I recall, that wasn't strictly AGS0; it was ideal meaning "super duper fine make" (which can be AGS0 or GIA ex, depending).

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You don''t seem to understand me, Alj. When people come here looking for an "ideal cut" diamond, they can look at AGS0 and a particular range of GIA excellent. Both WF AND GOG tell us which GIA Excellents are "ideal cut". So there is no purpose in telling people they should only look at AGS when they are asking for "ideal cut". The acceptable GIA "ideal" are identified by both WF in Expert Selection and by GOG. This is related to what Ellen was saying, not the issue of labeling stones AGS0.

 

[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