What's wrong with AGS Lab?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is sad though because AGS had an iconic status and appears to have lost ground. They could have been the top niche lab in the world for discerning diamond buyers. This could have been much more than 5% of diamonds by value.

That's a good explanation of why I started this thread. Perhaps it shouldn't be stated in the past tense. Can it STILL be much more than 5% of diamonds by value?

About 2-3 years back Sergey Sivovolenko made several commens and suggestions on this forum as to why in his view AGS were making a series of mistakes. Some of that discussion went off the board into emails etc.
I have not re-read those discussion Neil, but I am sure if you did we would find some answers to "What's wrong with AGS Lab?"

 

[Ravinmad]

I really expected to hear something/someone mention the ISO standard or lack thereof? Is this a white herring and folks are afraid of someone specifically defining diamond grading, removing or locking a standard rigid???

ISO certification and such can be a pain, trust you me, and there's ways someone who's stretching around or pushing the limits of ISO tolerances/variation/etc.

comments?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I really expected to hear something/someone mention the ISO standard or lack thereof? Is this a white herring and folks are afraid of someone specifically defining diamond grading, removing or locking a standard rigid???

ISO certification and such can be a pain, trust you me, and there's ways someone who's stretching around or pushing the limits of ISO tolerances/variation/etc.

comments?

There are ISO labbs, I think IGI is.
But there are no ISO grading standards - it is impossible beause of many factors. Totally impossible

 

[Ravinmad]

I understand that from my time around here, but if you look into that ISO document I linked, it was a standard or the beginning of a standard for round brillants back in 1995 Shrugs, The expotential of diamond cut variations is pretty mad, and I would love to see a mathmatical problem or solution of that variability. Anyone have Stephen Hawkings number handy?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Since we are speaking of different kinds of reports and innovations, I just noticed that GIA has released an all digital report with a photo of the diamond. If you mouse over the photo it magnifies.

http://www.gia.edu/nav/toolbar/newsroom/news-releases/2012-news-releases/gia-unveils-digital-diamond-report.html

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Since we are speaking of different kinds of reports and innovations, I just noticed that GIA has released an all digital report with a photo of the diamond. If you mouse over the photo it magnifies.

http://www.gia.edu/nav/toolbar/newsroom/news-releases/2012-news-releases/gia-unveils-digital-diamond-report.html

I just created a new thread out of this topic as it is somewhat divergent:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/new-all-digital-gia-report.172030/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/new-all-digital-gia-report.172030/[/URL]

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I understand that from my time around here, but if you look into that ISO document I linked, it was a standard or the beginning of a standard for round brillants back in 1995 Shrugs, The expotential of diamond cut variations is pretty mad, and I would love to see a mathmatical problem or solution of that variability. Anyone have Stephen Hawkings number handy?

Ravin,
Garry is right. There is no 'ISO standard for diamonds' nor will there ever be. It is actually not the purpose of ISO to set standards. Rather, they certify that you have the processes in place to assure that your output complies with the standards you set, and that you have procedures for monitoring and correcting deviations from your stated standards. The purpose is continual quality improvement.

We have learned alot about our business, have found and fixed some weakness, and have captured some new efficiencies in going through the ISO certification process. It is expensive and requires alot of time and attention by everyone in the company, but it has been tremendously worthwhile. As far as we know, we are the only retail jeweler to be certifified ISO9001.

It is not for the faint of heart though. If you are not committed to the philosophy it will bring you to your knees!

 

[Ravinmad]

I understand that from my time around here, but if you look into that ISO document I linked, it was a standard or the beginning of a standard for round brillants back in 1995 Shrugs, The expotential of diamond cut variations is pretty mad, and I would love to see a mathmatical problem or solution of that variability. Anyone have Stephen Hawkings number handy?

Ravin,
Garry is right. There is no 'ISO standard for diamonds' nor will there ever be. It is actually not the purpose of ISO to set standards. Rather, they certify that you have the processes in place to assure that your output complies with the standards you set, and that you have procedures for monitoring and correcting deviations from your stated standards. The purpose is continual quality improvement.

We have learned alot about our business, have found and fixed some weakness, and have captured some new efficiencies in going through the ISO certification process. It is expensive and requires alot of time and attention by everyone in the company, but it has been tremendously worthwhile. As far as we know, we are the only retail jeweler to be certifified ISO9001.

It is not for the faint of heart though. If you are not committed to the philosophy it will bring you to your knees!

try having it intergrated with AMS, SAP, or another major software system, it will remove your knees and issue you a replacement thats approved.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I understand that from my time around here, but if you look into that ISO document I linked, it was a standard or the beginning of a standard for round brillants back in 1995 Shrugs, The expotential of diamond cut variations is pretty mad, and I would love to see a mathmatical problem or solution of that variability. Anyone have Stephen Hawkings number handy?

Ravin,
Garry is right. There is no 'ISO standard for diamonds' nor will there ever be. It is actually not the purpose of ISO to set standards. Rather, they certify that you have the processes in place to assure that your output complies with the standards you set, and that you have procedures for monitoring and correcting deviations from your stated standards. The purpose is continual quality improvement.

We have learned alot about our business, have found and fixed some weakness, and have captured some new efficiencies in going through the ISO certification process. It is expensive and requires alot of time and attention by everyone in the company, but it has been tremendously worthwhile. As far as we know, we are the only retail jeweler to be certifified ISO9001.

It is not for the faint of heart though. If you are not committed to the philosophy it will bring you to your knees!

try having it intergrated with AMS, SAP, or another major software system, it will remove your knees and issue you a replacement thats approved.

Ouch. It makes my head hurt just to think about it. You would be spending your whole life writing up non-conformities!

 

[aljdewey]

I dunno........while I see Yssie's point that multiple formats make AGSL confusing, I don't think that's really the overall trouble.

In order for people to know there are 6 different levels of reporting, they'd have to hear of AGSL at *all* to begin with, and in my humble opinion, that hasn't happened. Until I found PS, I'd never heard of AGS at all. Most shoppers aren't the kind of manic researchers that PSers are, so they aren't going to overturn enough stones to connect with a reference to AGSL.

AGSL built a solid reputation on setting standards for the creme de la creme, so there is motivation enough in that very small segment to seek out AGS. But like any boutique, the 'creme de la creme' segment of the market is a fraction of the total market. What is their posturing to the rest of the diamond buying public? What features/benefits are they offering that the market isn't already getting from GIA? That's what has to be addressed to move the market off inertia.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I dunno........while I see Yssie's point that multiple formats make AGSL confusing, I don't think that's really the overall trouble.

In order for people to know there are 6 different levels of reporting, they'd have to hear of AGSL at *all* to begin with, and in my humble opinion, that hasn't happened. Until I found PS, I'd never heard of AGS at all. Most shoppers aren't the kind of manic researchers that PSers are, so they aren't going to overturn enough stones to connect with a reference to AGSL.

AGSL built a solid reputation on setting standards for the creme de la creme, so there is motivation enough in that very small segment to seek out AGS. But like any boutique, the 'creme de la creme' segment of the market is a fraction of the total market. What is their posturing to the rest of the diamond buying public? What features/benefits are they offering that the market isn't already getting from GIA? That's what has to be addressed to move the market off inertia.

The major tool that got AGS established was its cut grade system imported into Sarin sacanners in the 1990's.
Cutters all over the world learned about AGS and if they knew the stone had all the reuirements they would sometimes open accounts with the lab and submit stones.
With GIA's system since 2005(?) AGS is redundant.
I think there is not really even a AGS premium on B2B listed stones anymore.
They also made a fatal mistake by enforcing ideal sym and polish on fancy shapes - almost impossible to achieve practically.
Bad case of bullet in foot.

 

[chrion777]

Garry, what is your thought on AGS color grading. I've heard all sorts of things, some people say it is half a grade looser then GIA, I read somewhere else 1/10th looser (although I don't know how you would even figure that out without a huge study).

I just purchased an AGS F color stone. How sure can I be that it is also a GIA F?

Just asking since u are the most knowledgeable person on here.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry, what is your thought on AGS color grading. I've heard all sorts of things, some people say it is half a grade looser then GIA, I read somewhere else 1/10th looser (although I don't know how you would even figure that out without a huge study).

I just purchased an AGS F color stone. How sure can I be that it is also a GIA F?

Just asking since u are the most knowledgeable person on here.

Not on this topic, someone else may answer.

 

[oldminer]

You cannot be "sure" that an AGSL F is a GIA "F". The dealers who are very active in this are the kind of folks who do not assume that one grade at one lab will equal another lab. Often there is a grade difference. We just had a pair of Kaplan H-VS1 diamonds of over 1.50ct each that had only Kaplan grading when they were sold to the retailer and the subsequent consumer back on 2007. Upon review Kaplan had Certs on both diamonds, one GIA and one AGS. GIA graded both on re- submission as I color and agreed to re-evaluate the one with their previous H color and raised it back to H. The other diamond, a perfect match, they refused to reconsider. The entire diamond business is flaky and unsure of itself because the subjective nature of grading remains for the present time. Older members of the diamond community would love to see the situation stay exactly as it is, but technology will have its way with the diamond trade in the coming years. There is nothing wrong with AGS grading or GIA grading. There are inherent flaws in the agreed upon system that can be improved, but not while human grading is the only grading available.

 

[Amys Bling]

Very true regarding human grading. The accuracy is only as good as the person doing the grading...

 

[aljdewey]

I dunno........while I see Yssie's point that multiple formats make AGSL confusing, I don't think that's really the overall trouble.

In order for people to know there are 6 different levels of reporting, they'd have to hear of AGSL at *all* to begin with, and in my humble opinion, that hasn't happened. Until I found PS, I'd never heard of AGS at all. Most shoppers aren't the kind of manic researchers that PSers are, so they aren't going to overturn enough stones to connect with a reference to AGSL.

AGSL built a solid reputation on setting standards for the creme de la creme, so there is motivation enough in that very small segment to seek out AGS. But like any boutique, the 'creme de la creme' segment of the market is a fraction of the total market. What is their posturing to the rest of the diamond buying public? What features/benefits are they offering that the market isn't already getting from GIA? That's what has to be addressed to move the market off inertia.

The major tool that got AGS established was its cut grade system imported into Sarin sacanners in the 1990's.
Cutters all over the world learned about AGS and if they knew the stone had all the reuirements they would sometimes open accounts with the lab and submit stones.
With GIA's system since 2005(?) AGS is redundant.
I think there is not really even a AGS premium on B2B listed stones anymore.
They also made a fatal mistake by enforcing ideal sym and polish on fancy shapes - almost impossible to achieve practically.
Bad case of bullet in foot.

To Garry's point...........AGSL provided a way to get a better "pedigree" for the best of the best.

AGSL may still hold the pedigree among 'cut-mavens', but since the overwhelming majority of the market doesn't even understand cut, there's no draw for them.