What's wrong with AGS Lab?

[denverappraiser]

I agree that the GG is generally regarded as a good credential, I’m certainly happy with mine. I’m not sure it the pinnacle though. At least in the appraisal community, using a GG as an appraisal credential is seen as a bad sign. As a gemological credential, the FGA from Gem-A (Gemmological Association of Great Britain), is both more difficult to attain and has been around quite a bit longer. In terms of gemology, excuse me gemmology, I think it’s a significantly more rigorous curriculum. That said, I agree that in the US, a GIA-GG is widely recognized as the basic credential for gemologists and there are a LOT of us out there. Gem-A suffers from this same market share problem when compared to GIA but they’re not even really trying to get students in the US so I wouldn’t call this situation really analogous. AGSL is definitely trying. They have a full time staff of clever and hard working, well equipped and highly skilled people. They have what should be a captive market of 5000 high quality stores and a 20 year record doesn't exactly make them new kids on the block.

I wouldn’t say the trade is clamoring for a competitor. They whine a lot. That’s not quite the same thing.

I agree with the above that it’s surely mostly about the money. This sort of thing is always about money, and the money happens on the sales end. That’s what I don’t understand. Anecdotal evidence both from looking at what people buy and looking at what dealers are asking for things suggests that AGS-0’s generally sell for slightly more than otherwise similar GIA-x’s. As far as I can tell, they sell faster too, and that’s not even counting the 6 week coffee break that GIA subjects you to. Surely of those 1746 round stones at Stuller, more than 83 of them would qualify as AGS-0 if asked. Someone, presumably Stuller, CHOSE to sell them as GIA’s. They obviously know who AGSL is and are a client or they wouldn’t even have 83. David’s friend is sending thousands of stones to GIA and zero to AGSL. Net savvyness isn’t the reason. He’s got a lackey to list them on Rapnet. He’s got lackey’s to polish, ship and deal with the money. It’s hard to imagine that ALL stones go to GIA just because it’s easier and if certain stones are carved off for one or both of the EGL’s for whatever reason, the same thing can be done for AGSL for different reasons. He can and surely does have a lackey or two to deal with this very issue. No? IF there’s money on the table I see no downside.

Perhaps my assumption is wrong. Would a 000 really be expected to bring more than that same stone would with an XXX? Do they, on average, sell faster? Ella or Andrey, can you do some data mining in the database and tell us anything useful? Any of our other tradespeople care to shed some light on this?

Is correct to say that they have painted themselves into a corner with the cut grade? The usual reason to go to AGSL is to get the cut grade. This means a grade other than zero means ‘failure’ and therefore should go to some other lab. GIA-VG is clearly seen as better than, say, AGS-5 for whatever reason, even on the same stone. That loses a huge market segment but it’s hard to imagine that this costs them 99%. For princesses a pedigree of GIA-nothing is obviously seen as better than AGS-nonzero. Frankly, I’m surprised that Stuller has ANY of those.

Consumer perception I think is key, and the reason I brought it up here. David’s guy’s statement is telling. He wants to supply his dealers with what their consumers are demanding and they aren’t demanding AGSL. I suspect that’s the key at Stuller as well. Advertising is obviously part of it but it doesn’t seem to be the whole answer. GCAL spent millions without making a dent.

 

[denverappraiser]

Denverappraisor,

Trade has a choice when submitting to AGSL to get a cut grade or not and this applies to both Fancy and Round shapes. I don't see many AGS-5 grades out there, it isn't hindering their business as much as one might think.

I believe AGSL are focusing on the niche branded fancy market as they see that as a more reliable stream of income for the future.

Rather than guessing like in this thread why not ask Peter Yantzer what he feels is required for AGSL to get market penetration and report back or write an article. You can ask him your questions about their cut grading on new outline shapes as well.

Considering his position as director of the lab and the fact that he has close family who work in senior positions in GIA-GTL I'd say he would be an ideal person to get more accurate information that goes beyond conjecture.

He is also a really nice guy and readily approachable in my experience.

I have spoken to Peter on many occasions, and no doubt will do so again. I also have no doubt that he and others at AGSL are following this thread. It’s an important issue over there. It's AGS policy NOT to participate in this sort of thing directly and I wouldn’t expect to see a post from any of them but I do think it's possible that they might be able to glean something useful from reading it.

I have no idea how popular the ‘non-cut graded’ reports are from them but my understanding is not so much. See Jim’s comments above about the Gold reports. I presume you are in the trade, do you do well with them? I agree we don’t see many stones graded as AGS-5’s but we DO see the stones. They come with reports from other labs. Some are GIA-VG’s, some are EGL-Premiums, some are EGL/IGI-nothing.

An article is possible but really the data is bound for AGSL to use as they wish. I’m a pretty unapologetic fan of theirs but I don’t claim to be qualified to tell them how to run their business. At the same time, I would love to provide them information that would help or at least help define the problem.

 

[diagem]

We live in an industry which loves taking risks/speculations in the purchasing & production phases but are lacking creativity in marketing, since GIA is the easy & safest way to go why shake the "steady" grounds most players stand on?

I believe with the right education to industry players they might find the 'added value' hidding in the marketing of AGSL graded Diamonds like Denverappraiser says.

At least the potential is there.

 

[Jim Summa]

Neil,
I think the membership has let them down.

 

[denverappraiser]

Neil,
I think the membership has let them down.

I’m not so fast to pick on the members. They too are watching the money. I wouldn’t expect them to be loyal to choose their lab out of a sense of loyalty any more than I would expect to do it out of habit. If it pays better to honestly sell stones graded by GIA or some other lab, I would fully expect them to do it and I wouldn’t hold it against them.

Most stores buy stones that have already been sent in for grading by the likes of Stuller and David’s guy. There are hundreds of these people but it’s actually a pretty small group in the scheme of things. That’s another statistic I would love to see but have no idea how to get. How much of the worldwide lab business comes from the top, say, 200 customers? My guess is it’s a lot. Possibly upwards of 75%.

In the case of the most expensive good, stores don’t carry a lot in inventory but will get it in on consignment at the moment they’ve got a customer interested. This is called ‘memo’ in the trade and it’s the standard way high end and even mid-range stones are sold. The argument for the stores is that customers demand GIA, and that’s what they deliver. Maybe they do. That seems like the key. Where does that demand come from? The classic advice if you go online is to buy GIA or GIA/AGS. The classic advice if you walk into a store is to buy ‘certified’ which includes all of the labs, which includes EGLUSA, EGL international, HRD and IGI. Given the general success of these other labs in their various niches, this seems important. The classic advice if you talk to friends and coworkers is to shop with a particular store or dealer.

In terms of grading volume, number of stones inspected, value of stones inspected, gross revenues or pretty much any other metric I can think of, AGSL is pulling a distant 6th in this group and have since they opened. In terms of customer and trade perceived reliability and usefulness they seem to be consistently ranked first or second and have been for many years. That’s quite a disparity.

I think everyone here would agree that the service is good. They produce reliable information and they’re helpful for their clients and the public. Since it’s a consumer board and they don't work directly with the public you’ll mostly have to take my word for the fact that they’re pleasant to work with, they’re punctual and that they charge reasonable fees. There’s always room for improvement but I think it’s clear from all of the above that the issues keep them from growing like a weed revolve around PR and marketing, not the quality of service. They do next to zero in terms of direct consumer advertising that I’ve seen beyond the website and point of sale things offered to the AGS members like brochures and signs. They promote themselves to the trade through trade shows, AGS internal things like the conclave, and advertising in some of the trade rags like JCK and Rapaport. Their advertising budget has been and will continue to be paltry compared to competitors like GIA and IGI. Peter and a few others spend a lot of time participating in discussion panels and schmoozing people who need to be schmoozed but most of the staff spends their time doing things like grading stones, shipping and receiving things, accounting for the money etc. I don’t think there is much in the way unallocated staff resources.

 

[Serg]

Diamond consumer has big fear to be cheated ( because he does not understand Diamond and many very unclear rules in diamond trade, also because he has not real possibility to compare diamonds and to do his own decision )
this fear determines him behavior : He does not try to buy the best for him, he tries to buy not worse then others.
so he asks : What do others buy ? then he buys the same. he wants a successful engagement , he does not need any risk( New cuts, new labs, ets) . He prefers not to do mistake, and acts as others.

If most of his friends bought RBC GIA, he will buy RBC GIA with high probability. He has very low chance to buy something a little better but he has huge risk to buy something much worse( or received fiancee's misunderstanding)
therefore it is reasonable to buy either exactly the same or totally different.It is not reasonable to buy something similar than others bough. in such case market share for one Lab is growing and for other is decreasing (if they provide very similar service)

Risk is reasonable if he can buy something really unique, something special. But AGS had killed unique client proposition by introducing Gold report. Without introducing the Gold report AGS had a chance to get about 10% market share. By not introducing the Gold report and using the same Score rules for cut grading for all types of cuts AGS had a chance to get more than 30% market share. But with Gold repot and different Penalty rules for different cuts even 2% is a good result.

 

[Regular Guy]

But AGS had killed unique client proposition by introducing Gold report. Without introducing the Gold report AGS had a chance to get about 10% market share. By not introducing the Gold report and using the same Score rules for cut grading for all types of cuts AGS had a chance to get more than 30% market share. But with Gold repot and different Penalty rules for different cuts even 2% is a good result.

Serg, I'm not sure I understand the logic of this last point.

But, I take for former one.

From this point of view, the single thing that might help promote best AGS is simple access to Pricescope.

That is, in this information intensive age, for consumers who might learn on the internet, and do their shopping in tandem in local stores, the easier it is to find Pricescope, and to learn in what seems to be a non-biased environment what they would not likely learn in a store...that AGS really is probably best...they will learn this most reliably, if Pricescope most efficiently comes to them...maybe from a google search.

I'm not sure if Pricescope accessibility could be improved...or if it's changed at all over the years.

I just did a "dumb" search using terms similar to: How to buy the best diamond. Pricescope came up on page 3 only.

But, the search I probably myself used 7 years ago...ideal cut diamond...still puts Pricescope on page 1.

In this case, as is sometimes said...the medium is the message.


Ira Z.

 

[ChrisES]

But AGS had killed unique client proposition by introducing Gold report. Without introducing the Gold report AGS had a chance to get about 10% market share. By not introducing the Gold report and using the same Score rules for cut grading for all types of cuts AGS had a chance to get more than 30% market share. But with Gold repot and different Penalty rules for different cuts even 2% is a good result.

Serg, I'm not sure I understand the logic of this last point.

But, I take for former one.

From this point of view, the single thing that might help promote best AGS is simple access to Pricescope.

That is, in this information intensive age, for consumers who might learn on the internet, and do their shopping in tandem in local stores, the easier it is to find Pricescope, and to learn in what seems to be a non-biased environment what they would not likely learn in a store...that AGS really is probably best...they will learn this most reliably, if Pricescope most efficiently comes to them...maybe from a google search.

I'm not sure if Pricescope accessibility could be improved...or if it's changed at all over the years.

I just did a "dumb" search using terms similar to: How to buy the best diamond. Pricescope came up on page 3 only.

But, the search I probably myself used 7 years ago...ideal cut diamond...still puts Pricescope on page 1.

In this case, as is sometimes said...the medium is the message.


Ira Z.

I can weigh in on this, and I hope PS admins are reading.

As I mentioned in this thread, I only found PS after buying my girlfriend's future ring, and it was not from lack of looking for advice. In the end it was a no-brainer to support a third-gen B&M in her parents town, but we visited two independent B&M jewelers, four chain B&M jewelers, and many websites that list loose diamonds, including James Allen. I also quizzed friends who had gotten rings recently, and searched for diamond information sites, in particular reading and relying on truthaboutdiamonds.com.

I forget how I finally found PS, but I think it was after I had taken possession of the ring and was trying to figure out more about it (see linked thread) and ran a pretty wide range of very specific google searches about color and about angles, since I knew I had chosen an unusual diamond.

TLDR; I think that PS has a terrible "footprint" on Google and as a consumer not "in the know" who wanted to be in the know I effectively failed to find the site at all.

I'm not an expert in this, but if we could make PS a more visible community it could help a lot more people, and on the flip side a lot more people would be inputting creative ideas, listing their pre-loved items, etc. On the other hand, I do worry that perhaps it is because PS is so low-key in publicity and so high-quality in postings that trade-people are comfortable posting substantive material here. It can be a delicate balance.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Serg does raise good points- how much time should be spent advising consumers about lab reports, and how they affect prices? Can't be done enough, IMO.
Trust really is an issue- and the barriers are quite high in some senses.
AGSL is already there in terms of quality reputation- what about focusing on more specific items.

I have a view skewed towards Fancy Colors.
I think I may have seen one AGSL Fancy Color report , sometime. Has anyone else seen any quantity of them?
For a vendor that wanted to start to promote AGSL Fancy Colors, it's a risky bet.
Clearly, there's already a small niche market where a AGSL goods command a slightly higher prince that garden variety GIA round and princess cut colorless diamonds.
Maybe they could develop something practical and groundbreaking to break into the fancy colored market.
They're going to have to show some value to cutters, and or dealers to justify abandoning GIA.

 

[Ravinmad]

I found truthabout first as well, and was reading that for several days up to maybe 2 weeks in addition to going to jamesallen, searching stones on the site. I also did a touch thru blue nile, thou I tend to enjoy images as much as the next person so stuck with jamesallen. James Allens True Hearts tipped me towards the idea of Hearts and Arrows.

I then found or started to read about H&A diamonds on heartsandarrows site, a google search found me at wikipedia and thru the links and references area of the article I found BGD and WF and the timeline of things as when Brian was at WF, etc. One day I searched "diamond search engine" and at about 2/3rds of the way down the page I found pricescope. The interesting thing was I used the search engine 3-4 times before I really discovered the "forum" and that there were folks who were willing and able to help/assist/teach thru it and learned about the benefits of being a PS member. Pricescope is a gem, AGS 0 grade, but its about as hard to locate as AGS stones seem to be in the big picture ( allow a guy a half hearted play on words, I mean it in jest) I dont want to compromise PS but I think it could use some additional exposure, but how without overkilling it or getting 4k facebook people flooding us, is the pandora's box.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Wow what an impressive thread. Lots of great questions, a lot of excellent background (thanks Neil), and some very astute comments from several different perspectives. All adds up to a valuable way to spend 30 minutes (I think that’s how long it took me to read this far!). And yes, I suspect the folks at AGSL will read it as well. With interest.

I also have to admit to being an unapologetic fan of the AGSL and the great folks that work there. They are as helpful, pleasant and diligent as they are knowledgeable. Having said that, we don’t have any complaints about the service we are getting from GIA.

I think there is one assumption driving some of the commentary that is possibly somewhat invalid. Although I am in no way privy to the business strategy of AGS, I suspect that it is NOT their goal to be another GIA. So if we are judging their success by market share, I think we are missing the point. AGSL came into existence specifically to fill a void left by GIA in terms of cut quality analysis. I think their success did motivate GIA to finally launch their own cut grade, belatedly and possibly reluctantly. The business reasons for GIA dragging their feet on cut grading is a whole other discussion!

Having said that, I am sure AGSL would like to grow. And I am just as sure that they will. Cut quality is so fundamental to diamond beauty, and there are so many poorly cut diamonds in the market that there is large upside potential. As more folks learn about the importance of cut, AGSL certs will garner more and more attention. I think the past few years have been so tumultuous for the whole industry that AGSL temporarily lost their footing, but I believe that was a pretty big speed bump that many of us felt. I now see them moving forward into the future in significant ways. For instance, they recently launched versions of their website in several different languages.

I think the point about public visibility has some merit. Maybe AGSL could do more to market themselves. The point about Pricescope ranking in the search engines is also good one, and I am sure that the folks from PS give a lot of thought to Search Engine Optimization and will continue to improve in that area. And by doing so, AGSL will get more exposure.

Serg’s comment about the mindset of a typical consumer is simple but clearly true. Brand recognition comes in to play in what customers ask for, as well as natural fear of the unknown. In order to be willing purchase a diamond with an unfamiliar lab report, you must do your homework to find out why the lesser known option might be better. The folks that spend some time here come away with that knowledge and reap the benefits of acquiring significantly higher performing diamonds, many of which have AGSL pedigrees.

I would be interested to hear Serg amplify on his comments about fancies and missed opportunity for AGSL. It does seem to me that there are not nearly enough AGS graded fancies in the market and that does not seem to be improving. It has a lot to do with how difficult it is for a cutter to make Ideal in shapes with more complexity.

And yes, it always comes down to economics. If you can squeeze a few extra points out of the rough (sometimes more than a few!) and get a saleable GIA paper, most manufacturers struggling to compete are going to go that way. Their first goal is to make money, not to add more beauty to the world!

 

[denverappraiser]

Bryan,

Thanks for the post. You touched on an important point. The decision of which lab to use is often made before the stone is even cut and the cutter must decide whether to aim for the GIA or AGS target. A ‘missed’ AGS-0 doesn’t just cost money in terms of lab fees, it both costs more for the production and results in a smaller stone. For people working on a razor thin margin, this could be a deal killer to even try if the possibility of this risk is seen as significant, especially in cases where it’s near an important weight barrier (like 2.00cts) and loss of a single point could mean thousands of dollars.

 

[lagori]

I don't know if the below is representative of the experience others have had with AGSL, but here is my experience with them.

I bought an AGSL-graded 1.4ct cushion in November of 2011. The AGSL grading report date was the end of October 2011. I wanted the stone to be laser-inscribed. So, I requested the jeweler to send it to the lab for inscription, which was done at the beginning of December of 2011. The lab inscribed the diamond and updated the report. This is a VVS2 diamond. The original report issued in October had only a feather identified as an inclusion. However, when I looked at the updated report, I was shocked to see that it now listed needle, pinpoint, and feather as inclusions. I called the AGSL and asked them how it was possible that merely six weeks after the original report had been issued, new inclusions appeared in the stone. They called me back after conducting their internal investigation for three hours to tell me that they don't have an explanation other than that they had made a mistake when they were re-grading the stone and would update the report to reflect the original inclusion plot (they removed needle and pinpoint). Keep in mind that at that point the stone had already been shipped back to the jeweler. So, whatever changes they made to the report, they made them on paper without looking at the diamond again! Now, if you are a consumer, in this situation, would all of this make you uncomfrtable about their grading? Would you consider them to be reliable?

My other complaint about AGSL is the lack of public disclosure of their fees for various services. GIA lists their fees for grading, laser-inscription, etc, right on their website. AGSL - does not.

When I requested my diamond to be laser-inscribed, I was originally given a quote of $150 by the jeweler. I was told that it included the cost of inscribing and shipping/insurance. However, after it was sent to AGSL, the jeweler told me that the cost was $250. When I asked why the cost was different from the original quote, the jeweler told me that because I needed the stone to be set by a certain date, they had to expedite the service by paying additional "expedite fee" of $55 to AGSL to put me ahead of the line. But, if I was willing to wait for 10 business days, they would remove that extra charge and bill me "only" $195. At that time, I told them to remove the "expedite fee", but still felt that the jeweler was taking advantage of me by charging me above the original $150 quote. So, I called AGSL. I told them that I was looking for the information about their fees. They asked me, if I were a consumer or a jeweler. When I told them that I was a consumer, they refused to disclose to me the cost of laser inscription other than to say that it was "minimal".

As a consumer, that made me feel that by witholding that type of information, they were enabling their members-jewelers to take advantage of unsuspecting customers! Perhaps, in an effort to make it more attractive for jewelers to give AGSL more of their business. If GIA has no problems disclosing their fees publicly, why can't AGSL do the same, if they want to compete with GIA?!

In addition, AGSL's turnaround time of under 5 days is a major advantage over GIA. However, that information is not prominently displayed on their website. I had to dig through their website to find a reference to that. if they want to take market share away from GIA, AGSL should definitely make this information visible and easy for consumers to access. Not to mention the fact that if I had that information in advance, I wouldn't let the jeweler overcharge me!

 

[Serg]

I would be interested to hear Serg amplify on his comments about fancies and missed opportunity for AGSL. It does seem to me that there are not nearly enough AGS graded fancies in the market and that does not seem to be improving. It has a lot to do with how difficult it is for a cutter to make Ideal in shapes with more complexity.

If consumer Wants to Buy Fancy cut he Needs to compare this cut with round cut:
1) Spread (he pays per carat but he needs to know how big diamond looks)
2) Optical performance : Does this fancy cut has similar or better or worse performance than RBC. How significant (noticeable) is the difference?
3) Durability, etc

for example he wants to buy an Oval cut. He knows that ASG has Cut grade for Oval, that AGS is a respectable laboratory in optical performance and that ASG 0 round cut is an Ideal diamond.

He decides to buy AGS 0 oval cut because he thinks that all AGS 0 diamonds have the same perfect Optical performance like Ideal round Cut.
What does he feel when he receives AGS 0 Oval? What does he think about AGS cut grading system afterwards? will he recommend AGSL to his friends? I do not think so. I do think that he will be disappointed and that he will not order any more from ASGL, AGS.

different rules for different cuts undermine AGS cut grading Brand

Many clients needs cut grade for fancy cuts on the same basis as for round cut. There is also need to Compare Oval with Cushion, Cushion with Round, Princes with Round.

Other problem for AGS cut grade is same Fire grade for 0.2 ct round and 2 ct round cut. Everybody can easily see that these 2 diamonds have quite different Fire appearance . so 2 quite different diamonds have same Fire grade . System does not have consistency: 2 diamonds with small difference in proportions have different penalty for Fire , but diamonds with significantly different Fire have same Fire grade.

0.2 ct Oval has same grade as Ideal 2 Ct round cut.

If consumer wants more Fire, he would need advice is it better to pay for proportion or is it better to pay for mass .

Scintillation is a different story. Brilliancy again is a different story. Size is important for Fire, Scintillation, Brilliancy. Everybody can easily check this by comparing 0.2ct and 2ct AGS 0 round cuts.

Consumer needs the same system of coordinates for Every Cut and Every size. He needs One Score system instead of Many penalty systems which are different for different sizes and different cuts.

 

[denverappraiser]

I don't know if the below is representative of the experience others have had with AGSL, but here is my experience with them.

I bought an AGSL-graded 1.4ct cushion in November of 2011. The AGSL grading report date was the end of October 2011. I wanted the stone to be laser-inscribed. So, I requested the jeweler to send it to the lab for inscription, which was done at the beginning of December of 2011. The lab inscribed the diamond and updated the report. This is a VVS2 diamond. The original report issued in October had only a feather identified as an inclusion. However, when I looked at the updated report, I was shocked to see that it now listed needle, pinpoint, and feather as inclusions. I called the AGSL and asked them how it was possible that merely six weeks after the original report had been issued, new inclusions appeared in the stone. They called me back after conducting their internal investigation for three hours to tell me that they don't have an explanation other than that they had made a mistake when they were re-grading the stone and would update the report to reflect the original inclusion plot (they removed needle and pinpoint). Keep in mind that at that point the stone had already been shipped back to the jeweler. So, whatever changes they made to the report, they made them on paper without looking at the diamond again! Now, if you are a consumer, in this situation, would all of this make you uncomfrtable about their grading? Would you consider them to be reliable?

My other complaint about AGSL is the lack of public disclosure of their fees for various services. GIA lists their fees for grading, laser-inscription, etc, right on their website. AGSL - does not.

When I requested my diamond to be laser-inscribed, I was originally given a quote of $150 by the jeweler. I was told that it included the cost of inscribing and shipping/insurance. However, after it was sent to AGSL, the jeweler told me that the cost was $250. When I asked why the cost was different from the original quote, the jeweler told me that because I needed the stone to be set by a certain date, they had to expedite the service by paying additional "expedite fee" of $55 to AGSL to put me ahead of the line. But, if I was willing to wait for 10 business days, they would remove that extra charge and bill me "only" $195. At that time, I told them to remove the "expedite fee", but still felt that the jeweler was taking advantage of me by charging me above the original $150 quote. So, I called AGSL. I told them that I was looking for the information about their fees. They asked me, if I were a consumer or a jeweler. When I told them that I was a consumer, they refused to disclose to me the cost of laser inscription other than to say that it was "minimal".

As a consumer, that made me feel that by witholding that type of information, they were enabling their members-jewelers to take advantage of unsuspecting customers! Perhaps, in an effort to make it more attractive for jewelers to give AGSL more of their business. If GIA has no problems disclosing their fees publicly, why can't AGSL do the same, if they want to compete with GIA?!

In addition, AGSL's turnaround time of under 5 days is a major advantage over GIA. However, that information is not prominently displayed on their website. I had to dig through their website to find a reference to that. if they want to take market share away from GIA, AGSL should definitely make this information visible and easy for consumers to access. Not to mention the fact that if I had that information in advance, I wouldn't let the jeweler overcharge me!

A lot of this may be a problem with the jeweler, not the lab, but some of it is the whole strategy of selling goods and services through dealers. Stores want and deserve a markup for their services of taking in the stone, shipping it out, receiving it back, assuming the liability for the whole deal and generally dealing with you. That’s why manufacturers use retailers at all. How much they deserve is an interesting question but some are better than others in terms of service, some are in more expensive locations than others etc. The ‘fair’ way to do this is for the lab to charge all the dealers the same, let them mark it up however they wish, and let them fight it out amongst themselves for consumers who want to shop it on price. That’s the way MOST of the things we buy are done. Another step that happens is to supply a ‘Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price’ that’s high enough that dealers have lots of room and they can fight over the ‘discount’ that’s given. The effect is the same, it’s just phrased differently but it allows the opportunity for the dealer to be selling directly to retail if they want. The manufacturer will sell at the MSRP and the dealers can undercut them if they wish. This is the way EGL-USA and IGI work for example and I see nothing at all wrong with it.


If you feel you were treated unfairly by an AGS member store, by the way, there is a grievance procedure with the society that will address it. I think there’s even a complaint form on the AGS website at www.americangemsociety.org...


GIA approaches it completely differently. They charge the same for all clients from the smallest to the biggest. They don’t seem to particularly want people reselling their services. This was a significant change when they went through their bribery scandal a decade or so ago. They cleaned house and changed a bunch of policies, including this one. Presumably they're happy with how it's been working out but I don't think any of the other labs have followed suit.

Why does AGSL do it differently from either GIA, where everyone pays retail or IGI and EGL, where they have different pricing levels for different customers depending on volume? I don't know, I'll ask them.

I’ve never encountered a rush charge from AGSL on inscriptions although I’ve never asked or needed one. It may have more to do with rushing the shippers than the lab. Overnight shipping is quite a bit more expensive than registered mail and that may be what the rush charge was about. The cost of the inscription service itself is usually under $50.


I agree that updating the report without an inspection raises reliability questions on the stone and exactly which report is 'right'.

 

[lagori]

Denverappraiser:

On the "expedite fee"- The jeweler told me that that was the fee that AGSL, itself, was charging for essentially processing my request and doing the laser-inscription on the rush basis. In other words, if they had ten diamonds to laser-inscribe - for the expedite fee, they would inscribe mine first, even if it arrived to the lab the last.

That was in addition to any overnight shippment/insurance costs associated with delivery of the stone to the lab and back to the jeweler. You can imagine how upset I was when I found out that it took AGSL only two days to inscribe the diamond and update the certificate without any rush fee and on top of that that's their average turnaround time for this kind of service.

Essentially, I was lied to by the jeweler and AGSL made it difficult for me to readily identify the problem by not making such important information easily accessible to me as a consumer!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I would be interested to hear Serg amplify on his comments about fancies and missed opportunity for AGSL. It does seem to me that there are not nearly enough AGS graded fancies in the market and that does not seem to be improving. It has a lot to do with how difficult it is for a cutter to make Ideal in shapes with more complexity.

If consumer Wants to Buy Fancy cut he Needs to compare this cut with round cut:
1) Spread (he pays per carat but he needs to know how big diamond looks)
2) Optical performance : Does this fancy cut has similar or better or worse performance than RBC. How significant (noticeable) is the difference?
3) Durability, etc

for example he wants to buy an Oval cut. He knows that ASG has Cut grade for Oval, that AGS is a respectable laboratory in optical performance and that ASG 0 round cut is an Ideal diamond.

He decides to buy AGS 0 oval cut because he thinks that all AGS 0 diamonds have the same perfect Optical performance like Ideal round Cut.
What does he feel when he receives AGS 0 Oval? What does he think about AGS cut grading system afterwards? will he recommend AGSL to his friends? I do not think so. I do think that he will be disappointed and that he will not order any more from ASGL, AGS.

different rules for different cuts undermine AGS cut grading Brand

Many clients needs cut grade for fancy cuts on the same basis as for round cut. There is also need to Compare Oval with Cushion, Cushion with Round, Princes with Round.

Isn't the above part of the shopping process the customer goes through by self education or working with a professional? That is, you are not suggesting that AGSL puts information on a fancy shape cert as it compares to round, are you? Just trying to understand.

Other problem for AGS cut grade is same Fire grade for 0.2 ct round and 2 ct round cut. Everybody can easily see that these 2 diamonds have quite different Fire appearance . so 2 quite different diamonds have same Fire grade . System does not have consistency: 2 diamonds with small difference in proportions have different penalty for Fire , but diamonds with significantly different Fire have same Fire grade.

0.2 ct Oval has same grade as Ideal 2 Ct round cut.

If consumer wants more Fire, he would need advice is it better to pay for proportion or is it better to pay for mass .

Scintillation is a different story. Brilliancy again is a different story. Size is important for Fire, Scintillation, Brilliancy. Everybody can easily check this by comparing 0.2ct and 2ct AGS 0 round cuts.

Consumer needs the same system of coordinates for Every Cut and Every size. He needs One Score system instead of Many penalty systems which are different for different sizes and different cuts.

Is it possible to devise a grading system that accounts for all the appearance differences in different shapes, sizes and proportion sets? Or does a shopper have to use relative reasoning (as ovals go this AGS0 is among the very best cut) along with the various tools available to assess light performance?

Serg,
My follow up questions are imbedded above in bold.

 

[Serg]

Brayn,


re:Isn't the above part of the shopping process the customer goes through by self education or working with a professional? That is, you are not suggesting that AGSL puts information on a fancy shape cert as it compares to round, are you? Just trying to understand.

I suggest that AGSL puts information on a fancy cut as it compares to :
1) Same size( mass, or spread) Ideal round cut
2) 1ct Ideal round cut

for example AGSL compares 0.2ct cushion with 0.2ct round and with 1 ct round.
0.2ct cushion has score much less than 1 ct round, but 2 ct cushion could have score higher than 1 ct round


re: Is it possible to devise a grading system that accounts for all the appearance differences in different shapes, sizes and proportion sets?

Yes , It is possible. for example AGS uses 3D model( not parameters) to create AGS Platinum report.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Bryan,


re:Isn't the above part of the shopping process the customer goes through by self education or working with a professional? That is, you are not suggesting that AGSL puts information on a fancy shape cert as it compares to round, are you? Just trying to understand.

I suggest that AGSL puts information on a fancy cut as it compares to :
1) Same size( mass, or spread) Ideal round cut
2) 1ct Ideal round cut

for example AGSL compares 0.2ct cushion with 0.2ct round and with 1 ct round.
0.2ct cushion has score much less than 1 ct round, but 2 ct cushion could have score higher than 1 ct round


re: Is it possible to devise a grading system that accounts for all the appearance differences in different shapes, sizes and proportion sets?

Yes , It is possible. for example AGS uses 3D model( not parameters) to create AGS Platinum report.

Serg,
I think the idea of including round comparative data on fancy certs is interesting and I would like to hear what others have to say. My gut feeling, in relationship to the subject of this thread, is that it might lead to AGSL selling even fewer fancy reports!

There are other reasons why customers choose alternate shapes other than strict light performance. In my experience selling diamonds to young men for engagement rings, when a customer comes in looking for a fancy shape it is usually because he is getting his girl what she wants. Maybe she has seen a design she loves in a magazine that features a fancy or she has always wanted the shape her Mom has.

Believe me, since we sell mostly ideal rounds, one of my first questions to a customer looking for a fancy is "what is it about this shape that you prefer?" If he says it is what SHE wants, end of story - we set about finding the best stone we can within his parameters. If he does not have a definite reason, then we talk about light performance of round ideals.

So, I guess my point is that I am not sure that it would necessarily be a service to the consumer for labs to explicitly compare fancy shapes to round ideals, even though it would provide a useful measuring stick.

 

[Karl_K]

re: comparing rounds to fancies.
I some what disagree.
No grading system can take into account the different ways they return light.
For example a chunky cushion compared to a ideal cut RB.
They look nothing a like and in some lighting the round will be brighter but in other lighting the cushion has the capability of blowing it away due to the larger virtual facets.
So which lighting environment do you do the comparison?
One is not inherently better than the other.

On the other hand a diamond that is 60% the brightness of a round is likely never going to be a bright diamond no matter the lighting.
I do use the round comparison in DC when designing but 1.0 DC is not a requirement.

 

[Serg]

Bryan,


re:Isn't the above part of the shopping process the customer goes through by self education or working with a professional? That is, you are not suggesting that AGSL puts information on a fancy shape cert as it compares to round, are you? Just trying to understand.

I suggest that AGSL puts information on a fancy cut as it compares to :
1) Same size( mass, or spread) Ideal round cut
2) 1ct Ideal round cut

for example AGSL compares 0.2ct cushion with 0.2ct round and with 1 ct round.
0.2ct cushion has score much less than 1 ct round, but 2 ct cushion could have score higher than 1 ct round


re: Is it possible to devise a grading system that accounts for all the appearance differences in different shapes, sizes and proportion sets?

Yes , It is possible. for example AGS uses 3D model( not parameters) to create AGS Platinum report.

Serg,
I think the idea of including round comparative data on fancy certs is interesting and I would like to hear what others have to say. My gut feeling, in relationship to the subject of this thread, is that it might lead to AGSL selling even fewer fancy reports!

There are other reasons why customers choose alternate shapes other than strict light performance. In my experience selling diamonds to young men for engagement rings, when a customer comes in looking for a fancy shape it is usually because he is getting his girl what she wants. Maybe she has seen a design she loves in a magazine that features a fancy or she has always wanted the shape her Mom has.

Believe me, since we sell mostly ideal rounds, one of my first questions to a customer looking for a fancy is "what is it about this shape that you prefer?" If he says it is what SHE wants, end of story - we set about finding the best stone we can within his parameters. If he does not have a definite reason, then we talk about light performance of round ideals.

So, I guess my point is that I am not sure that it would necessarily be a service to the consumer for labs to explicitly compare fancy shapes to round ideals, even though it would provide a useful measuring stick.

Bryan,

And How do you find Best fancy cut for her now?
How do cutters, consumer, retail understand which Cushion is best? which Oval is best?, etc
Best for Fire? Best for Brilliancy ? Best for Scintillation?

Do you believe that the 1 ct Fancy cut would have Fire higher than 1 ct Ideal round cut ?
Do you see more opportunity for your sells if some Fancy cuts have better FIre performance than Ideal round cut AND AGSL gives such information in reports?( for example:this particular Fancy cut has higher Fire than Ideal round. and that other fancy cut has higher Scintillation than Ideal round cut)?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Bryan,

Serg,
I think the idea of including round comparative data on fancy certs is interesting and I would like to hear what others have to say. My gut feeling, in relationship to the subject of this thread, is that it might lead to AGSL selling even fewer fancy reports!

There are other reasons why customers choose alternate shapes other than strict light performance. In my experience selling diamonds to young men for engagement rings, when a customer comes in looking for a fancy shape it is usually because he is getting his girl what she wants. Maybe she has seen a design she loves in a magazine that features a fancy or she has always wanted the shape her Mom has.

Believe me, since we sell mostly ideal rounds, one of my first questions to a customer looking for a fancy is "what is it about this shape that you prefer?" If he says it is what SHE wants, end of story - we set about finding the best stone we can within his parameters. If he does not have a definite reason, then we talk about light performance of round ideals.

So, I guess my point is that I am not sure that it would necessarily be a service to the consumer for labs to explicitly compare fancy shapes to round ideals, even though it would provide a useful measuring stick.

Bryan,

And How do you find Best fancy cut for her now?
How do cutters, consumer, retail understand which Cushion is best? which Oval is best?, etc
Best for Fire? Best for Brilliancy ? Best for Scintillation?

Do you believe that the 1 ct Fancy cut would have Fire higher than 1 ct Ideal round cut ?
Do you see more opportunity for your sells if some Fancy cuts have better FIre performance than Ideal round cut AND AGSL gives such information in reports?( for example:this particular Fancy cut has higher Fire than Ideal round. and that other fancy cut has higher Scintillation than Ideal round cut)?

Serg,
Points well taken. It would be much easier to find great fancies for customers if there were more AGSL fancy certs in the market, hence my concern that the fancy side of their business seems not to be really gaining much traction. Or if GIA would add overall cut grades to fancies- even if they were not as critical as AGSL, and there is no reason to believe they would be, it certainly would help.

I'm very convinced there is a need for more lab reports with cut quality analysis on fancies. I'm just not as convinced there is a pressing need for them to contain data explicitly comparing them to round ideals on those reports.

 

[Serg]

Bryan,

Serg,
I think the idea of including round comparative data on fancy certs is interesting and I would like to hear what others have to say. My gut feeling, in relationship to the subject of this thread, is that it might lead to AGSL selling even fewer fancy reports!

There are other reasons why customers choose alternate shapes other than strict light performance. In my experience selling diamonds to young men for engagement rings, when a customer comes in looking for a fancy shape it is usually because he is getting his girl what she wants. Maybe she has seen a design she loves in a magazine that features a fancy or she has always wanted the shape her Mom has.

Believe me, since we sell mostly ideal rounds, one of my first questions to a customer looking for a fancy is "what is it about this shape that you prefer?" If he says it is what SHE wants, end of story - we set about finding the best stone we can within his parameters. If he does not have a definite reason, then we talk about light performance of round ideals.

So, I guess my point is that I am not sure that it would necessarily be a service to the consumer for labs to explicitly compare fancy shapes to round ideals, even though it would provide a useful measuring stick.

Bryan,

And How do you find Best fancy cut for her now?
How do cutters, consumer, retail understand which Cushion is best? which Oval is best?, etc
Best for Fire? Best for Brilliancy ? Best for Scintillation?

Do you believe that the 1 ct Fancy cut would have Fire higher than 1 ct Ideal round cut ?
Do you see more opportunity for your sells if some Fancy cuts have better FIre performance than Ideal round cut AND AGSL gives such information in reports?( for example:this particular Fancy cut has higher Fire than Ideal round. and that other fancy cut has higher Scintillation than Ideal round cut)?

Serg,
Points well taken. It would be much easier to find great fancies for customers if there were more AGSL fancy certs in the market, hence my concern that the fancy side of their business seems not to be really gaining much traction. Or if GIA would add overall cut grades to fancies- even if they were not as critical as AGSL, and there is no reason to believe they would be, it certainly would help.

I'm very convinced there is a need for more lab reports with cut quality analysis on fancies. I'm just not as convinced there is a pressing need for them to contain data explicitly comparing them to round ideals on those reports.

Bryan,

a grading system which directly compares fancy cuts with round cut gives more opportunity for diamond market.
Now cutters do not have any motivation to improve fancy cuts because grading reports do not promote such improvements . What is reason to design and to cut Oval cut better than current Oval AGS0 ? You can't receive better grade even for much better Oval than current AGS 0 Oval. It is very strong limitation for increasing fancy cut diamond market. Everybody thinks that each fancy cut has worse optical performance than Ideal round cut.
it makes consumers to buy mainly Ideal round cuts. Most Ideal cuts have same optical performance(at least most consumers do not see the difference between any Two Ideal round Cuts)
This destroys uniqueness , customization, exclusivity for loose diamonds with price below 20.000$ (to buy inclusive diamond you need pay huge cost for rarity as D, IF, 3Ct).
Finally this is the reason why Diamond market is losing a big part of a new generation of consumers to other luxury goods. Different types of gadgets give now more uniqueness than ideal round diamond. Consumer can easily see the key differences between iPhone and GooglePhone, but he has to spend a lot time to find difference between AGS0 and GIA Ex. Lab reports' usability is a disaster, and there is a lot of Smoke and Mirrors, while nowadays consumer is used to products with good usability.

From this perspective the possibility of the direct comparison of fancies with round cut is the most effective way to considerably improve the usability Lab cut grading reports.

 

[lagori]

Even though I am just a consumer, I can see the logic in Serg's argument. If an ideal round of the same or 1 ct weight was used as a point of reference in grading fancy cuts' light performance, then, for example, it would be much easier for consumers to decide whether light performance of a proprietary brand such as AVC is worth paying double over a generic ideal cut or another proprietary brand, a s opposed to paying unsubstantiated premium based mostly on marketing. On the other hand, it would give shops like GOG justifiable reason to claim that their proprietary cut is worth paying the premium over their competition. Plus, I could certainly see how such new grading system would promote creativity on part of cuters to design new, unique cuts that would take diamonds' light performance to another level.

As I said, I am not a professional jeweler, but as a business person, I am intrigued by Serg's arguments! I am certainly enjoying reading this thread! Very interesting! Keep it on!!!

 

[AN0NYM0US]

But AGS had killed unique client proposition by introducing Gold report. Without introducing the Gold report AGS had a chance to get about 10% market share. By not introducing the Gold report and using the same Score rules for cut grading for all types of cuts AGS had a chance to get more than 30% market share. But with Gold repot and different Penalty rules for different cuts even 2% is a good result.

Serg, I'm not sure I understand the logic of this last point.

But, I take for former one.

From this point of view, the single thing that might help promote best AGS is simple access to Pricescope.

That is, in this information intensive age, for consumers who might learn on the internet, and do their shopping in tandem in local stores, the easier it is to find Pricescope, and to learn in what seems to be a non-biased environment what they would not likely learn in a store...that AGS really is probably best...they will learn this most reliably, if Pricescope most efficiently comes to them...maybe from a google search.

I'm not sure if Pricescope accessibility could be improved...or if it's changed at all over the years.

I just did a "dumb" search using terms similar to: How to buy the best diamond. Pricescope came up on page 3 only.

But, the search I probably myself used 7 years ago...ideal cut diamond...still puts Pricescope on page 1.

In this case, as is sometimes said...the medium is the message.


Ira Z.

I can weigh in on this, and I hope PS admins are reading.

As I mentioned in this thread, I only found PS after buying my girlfriend's future ring, and it was not from lack of looking for advice. In the end it was a no-brainer to support a third-gen B&M in her parents town, but we visited two independent B&M jewelers, four chain B&M jewelers, and many websites that list loose diamonds, including James Allen. I also quizzed friends who had gotten rings recently, and searched for diamond information sites, in particular reading and relying on truthaboutdiamonds.com.

I forget how I finally found PS, but I think it was after I had taken possession of the ring and was trying to figure out more about it (see linked thread) and ran a pretty wide range of very specific google searches about color and about angles, since I knew I had chosen an unusual diamond.

TLDR; I think that PS has a terrible "footprint" on Google and as a consumer not "in the know" who wanted to be in the know I effectively failed to find the site at all.

I'm not an expert in this, but if we could make PS a more visible community it could help a lot more people, and on the flip side a lot more people would be inputting creative ideas, listing their pre-loved items, etc. On the other hand, I do worry that perhaps it is because PS is so low-key in publicity and so high-quality in postings that trade-people are comfortable posting substantive material here. It can be a delicate balance.

I found PS by google searching

"Diamond Forum" Top 2 results were PS
"Diamond Ring Forum" Links 2, 3 and 4 were PS

"Diamond Ring Education" Has them on the front page

If people want to find PS it's actually pretty easy.

I can't really add to the discussion, other than to say I was taught GIA = Diamonds AGS = Gemstones..it's had to be "un-taught"

 

[ChrisES]

I found PS by google searching

"Diamond Forum" Top 2 results were PS
"Diamond Ring Forum" Links 2, 3 and 4 were PS

"Diamond Ring Education" Has them on the front page

If people want to find PS it's actually pretty easy.

I can't really add to the discussion, other than to say I was taught GIA = Diamonds AGS = Gemstones..it's had to be "un-taught"

It's great that you were looking for a forum; I wasn't. I was not looking for arguments and discussions and different people's photos (though I love them now that I have found them). I was looking for a webpage to tell me how much emphasis to place on cut, color, clarity, etc. And PS DOES that, on the forum but also in the Knowledge tab. And PS recommends great places to buy in the Resources tab. When I searched for buy diamonds online, no PS. (Just did it again and PS shows up on page 1, but the link is to "is is safe to buy online" not to, you know, the database.)

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Even though I am just a consumer, I can see the logic in Serg's argument. If an ideal round of the same or 1 ct weight was used as a point of reference in grading fancy cuts' light performance, then, for example, it would be much easier for consumers to decide whether light performance of a proprietary brand such as AVC is worth paying double over a generic ideal cut or another proprietary brand, a s opposed to paying unsubstantiated premium based mostly on marketing. On the other hand, it would give shops like GOG justifiable reason to claim that their proprietary cut is worth paying the premium over their competition. Plus, I could certainly see how such new grading system would promote creativity on part of cuters to design new, unique cuts that would take diamonds' light performance to another level.

As I said, I am not a professional jeweler, but as a business person, I am intrigued by Serg's arguments! I am certainly enjoying reading this thread! Very interesting! Keep it on!!!

Lagori, I also see the logic in Serg’s perspective. However, it seems to me he is like the chess master thinking several moves ahead. He seems to be focused on the challenge of illuminating distinctions between “garden variety AGS0” and really good ones!

I’m not sure you can jump ahead too far before doing the groundwork. To me the problem in the current market is much more basic. You have a vast quantity of mediocre to poor makes on the market. Cutters could already distinguish their goods by cutting to AGS0 standards and getting platinum certs. Why they are not doing that is a bigger issue than the lack of comparison data to round ideal on the cert. Again, don’t get me wrong, I see value in the concept.

I think it will take some time, and perhaps better marketing, for demand to grow for better cutting in fancies. It certainly has for rounds and more factories are applying more resources to do it than ever before.

I think the impediments to this progress have a lot to do with status quo and economics. I remain skeptical that this will change dramatically by AGSL putting round comparatives on fancy certs.

To me, what WOULD be a quantum leap in the direction of progress would be for GIA to release cut grades for fancies. This would help get us to a place where the market could catch up to Serg’s chess game. Presumably the market would be able to see the same distinctions between AGS0 and GIA Ex in fancies, some consumers feeling GIA were good enough, others wanting something better and embracing AGS0. The diamond pros could then slice and dice AGS0 for differences and preferences. Overall, the quality of the fancy market would improve significantly giving new life to the making of excellent diamonds and innovations in diamond design, and creating more and better choices for consumers.

 

[denverappraiser]

What GIA could do to improve THEIR market share is definitely a different question, as is what could be done to improve the overall quality of diamonds in the market. I’m rather narrowly thinking of AGSL in this thread.

The things that have come up in my mind as this has developed are:

Work on the consumer website content. Techy details for the people who really want to know the nitty gritty. They’ve got a pretty good market presence among that crowd anyway but this would improve it and those who don’t dig into it would at least go away with the impression that they’re the serious experts in this stuff.

Work on the Google presence and search engine optimization. Be a destination for educational content. Maybe even pay Google for certain adwords.

Somehow promote the grades below 0 as something other than also-rans. There are fabulous stones out there that don’t get the 0 but the market clobbers them.

Keep on the cutting edge of offering the best service, like the QR code thing mentioned above.

Establish and publicly publish retail prices.

Offer SOMETHING to tip the cutters and big players over the edge. Hard data showing that 000 is will bring more than xxx on a particular stone seems like a good place to start. If this is true, promote the heck out of it to the cutting community. If it’s not true, make it so. Assistance in how to minimize the planning risk seems like it would be really helpful. I’ve no idea how to do this but maybe online services to cutters of some sort? Give a discount or a rebate on non-0’s, especially to your manufacturers? Offer your manufacturers a discounted ‘pre-cert’ like EGL does so they know more about what they’re getting into before they spring for the Platinum report?

Assist the retailers, even non AGS members, in providing value added services for their customers by using AGSL services. As with item #1 above, I think the techy types would be right up their alley. Most sales staff are pretty intimidated about this sort of customer to start with and would love any assistance they can get. Point of purchase items come to mind but they can get pretty pricey so this may be a web based solution as well. Maybe an android and/or iphone app? A plugin for the stores site? ASET rocks but, at least around here, rather few of the retailers know how to use it and even those who do seem afraid of it because it ‘feels’ like it’s showing defects rather than features. If it makes 90% of the stones in the store look crappy, even if it’s correct, they aren’t going to want use it unless they KNOW that it’s going to close a sale on a 0. It eliminates plan-B if the 000 turns out to be over budget.

Build consumer brand recognition which, unfortunately, may mean direct consumer advertising, and advertising can get pretty expensive. I’m not sure where would be good or even if an advertising budget is in the cards but I think it’s worth considering. Anecdotal evidence suggests that others like GIA, IGI and EGL spend significant amounts in this area and it seems to be working for them.

Then again, who am I? They outsell me 100:1! I’m just some appraiser out in fly-over country.

 

[diagem]

Bryan,

Thanks for the post. You touched on an important point. The decision of which lab to use is often made before the stone is even cut and the cutter must decide whether to aim for the GIA or AGS target. A ‘missed’ AGS-0 doesn’t just cost money in terms of lab fees, it both costs more for the production and results in a smaller stone. For people working on a razor thin margin, this could be a deal killer to even try if the possibility of this risk is seen as significant, especially in cases where it’s near an important weight barrier (like 2.00cts) and loss of a single point could mean thousands of dollars.

That's also an erred (and quite primitive) fashion to calculate the value of the near border weights.
The huge gaps in prices between a 1.95ct and a 2.01ct is simply wrong as currently calculated.

If the gaps wouldn't be so huge then it would pay to cut 1.98ct AGS 0's

 

[diagem]

Assist the retailers, even non AGS members, in providing value added services for their customers by using AGSL services. As with item #1 above, I think the techy types would be right up their alley. Most sales staff are pretty intimidated about this sort of customer to start with and would love any assistance they can get. Point of purchase items come to mind but they can get pretty pricey so this may be a web based solution as well. Maybe an android and/or iphone app? A plugin for the stores site? ASET rocks but, at least around here, rather few of the retailers know how to use it and even those who do seem afraid of it because it ‘feels’ like it’s showing defects rather than features. If it makes 90% of the stones in the store look crappy, even if it’s correct, they aren’t going to want use it unless they KNOW that it’s going to close a sale on a 0. It eliminates plan-B if the 000 turns out to be over budget.

I agree retailer education is key..., I am pretty new to this LP world but have clearly noticed retailers who claim to be marketing top cuts (mainly triple X's) including what they call EX-EX Fancy cuts have no clue on how to efficiently and knowingly market AGS 0 RB's let alone AGS 0 Fancy cuts.
AGS 0 Fancy cuts is an new & alienated product, AGS's (and cutters who cut those cuts) role is to educate their members/clients on the potential added value within the product.