Why Would A Cutter Chose An Old AGS DQD

[noobie]

I''m looking at a stone with an AGS cert from September 2005 and I can''t figure out why the cutter would ask for an old style DQD without the cut grade.


I''ve attached the cert. In case you can''t read it, the specs are:

Depth: 61.2
Table: 55
Crown: 34.6
Pavil: 40.6

The numbers look good and the stone scores 000 on the old scale. Is it possible that this stone would not get a 0 score with these proportions? It''s the only reason that I can think of that would explain the old style report instead of the new one.

I''ve ordered the stone to look at and will compare it against one of similar size that a H&A with all the bells and whistles, but was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts.

 

[RockDoc]

The date of that report is around the date they started with the new style light performance reports.

I believe AGS will update that report, easily for you - should you wish it.

Have your seller call the lab to find out for you.

Rockdoc

 

[noobie]

That was a thought too Bill, but I remember reading somewhere that the new certs began earlier in the summer and that the old ones were issued by request. I could be mistaken though.

 

[aljdewey]

Hey, Noob:

I went on a fact-finding mission about this, and the upshot is this: Dealers who submit stones can REQUEST the old doc if they want it. They can request the new DQD, the old DQD, or a DQR.

Why would a dealer want to ask for an old DQD? Well, likely because the diamond wouldn''t score a 0 under the new system that grades light performance. It also wouldn''t penality steep-deep combos, etc. It would allow them to get the coveted rating of AGS0 without the stone having to meet the new AGS0 criteria. This, in turn, allows them to sell the stones at the premium that AGS0 ranking commands.

You''d think that would be obvious, but the masses aren''t really up on the changes the way PSers are. So, if those folks even know about AGS in the first place, they think "AGS 0 - must be fine." The old AGS0 allowed folks to cut diamonds for weight retention and still get the 0 grade.

I personally find the whole thing a bit shameful, and I cannot understand why AGS would make such an option available. I mean, I KNOW why -- pressure from the dealers/owners. But honestly, allowing stones to get an AGS0 under the old system NOW when the new system is implemented....well, to me, all that does is devalue the "product" or "brand" that is AGS0.

 

[jadeleaves]

I don''t know the answer to the question, but I have one for you:

What new project have u got in the works again?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I cannot answer for this specific cutter: it might be ignorance, or the fact that the stone would not get the new AGS-0. Another possibility is that the majority of his customers does not want the new AGS for some reason.

In any case, we are happy with the new system, and would never ask for an old system-DQD anymore.

Live long,

 

[diamondlil]

Date: 1/31/2006 12:53:35 AM
Author: JadeLeaves
I don''t know the answer to the question, but I have one for you:

What new project have u got in the works again?

I was thinking the same thing, Jade.

 

[Regular Guy]

So, the cutter asks for the document, not the dealer?

I do see where the specs fall within the parameters of the more current AGS0. Also, as we have seen recently, since some options will make the new AGS0 that even fall outside of box for AGS0 (based on brillianteering, one would assume)....one would think stones falling inside the box could likewise be kicked outside for some defect?

What''s not clear to me is the extent to which a prospective cutter could know clearly enough in advance what grade would be received in advance of sending the stone.

In real estate, when seeking to purchase a home, clearly you can build in an escalation clause. Were I either the sender of the stone, and even were I AGS, I might want to allow for this sort of request: give me the best AGS0 you can...such that if it passes mustard in the new system, give me that, and if not, then AGS0 in the old system, etc.

Is is possible this option is available?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

When you submit the stone for a DQD, you first get all the results, then you decide which kind of document you wish to have. If you want a document, that is.

Live long,

 

[Regular Guy]

Thanks, Paul; well, maybe there you have it.

Unless it can be imagined that, despite the option, a user could more obliviously simply request what they had always used to request, not attending to the options available.

Is there a higher cost if you do request a document, then, after having learned your scores?

If not, you would always request it, if even to throw it away, right?
If so...hasn''t this practice been observed of and criticized of EGL...that you can pre-submit, understanding in advance of your higher cost what the grade outcome will be?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/31/2006 12:53:35 AM
Author: JadeLeaves
I don''t know the answer to the question, but I have one for you:

What new project have u got in the works again?

Yanno, I got so wrapped up in the documentation that I totally forgot to mention that, even though I thought it.

YOU are supposed to be on a moratorium, Noob........so what''s up YOUR sleeve?

 

[noobie]

Date: 1/31/2006 6:32:09 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
When you submit the stone for a DQD, you first get all the results, then you decide which kind of document you wish to have. If you want a document, that is.

Live long,

You know, that was my first guess, but I was giving them the benefit of doubt. Hmm, I'll contact the vendor and see what they say. The stone has not shipped yet and I'll need to decide if I have it sent to look at or pick another one.

Oh, and as to the project, nothing exciting, only a replacement of a lost stud

. Though, very positive insurance experience that I'll share when I have some time. However, looking at all of the new projects here is very bad for the credit card.

 

[noobie]

OK, Here is the megascope. Numbers look good and so does the variation on the pavil angles. It''s appears reasonably tight.

 

[noobie]

Here is the IdealScope. Again, it looks good. You vetrans will recognize where it is from. They have been very good, so let''s keep it our secret.

I''m wondering how this stone would not have received the 0 light return grade and hence why they would have chosen the old report.

It''s really clean, so I''ve decided to have the stone sent to me to look at.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Did you see that AGS has a pavilion angle of 40.6, while the Megascope gives 40.4?

 

[noobie]

Date: 1/31/2006 3:13:39 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Did you see that AGS has a pavilion angle of 40.6, while the Megascope gives 40.4?

Yes, I did. I also noticed the variation in diameter and crown angle, but thought they were due to calibration error. I assumed that the AGS numbers were more accurate and looked at the variation in angles, not so much for the absolute number, but for the variation. If one was off, the rest should be off by the same degre unless it''s a really bad machine?

Is this a bad assumption? Why does this stone still have me scratching my head?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/31/2006 3:40:31 PM
Author: noobie

I assumed that the AGS numbers were more accurate and looked at the variation in angles, not so much for the absolute number, but for the variation. If one was off, the rest should be off by the same degre unless it''s a really bad machine?

Is this a bad assumption? Why does this stone still have me scratching my head?

I know what you''re saying with this, but in this case, the problem may lie in the fact that they are off in the opposite directions. The crown angle goes up by 2 degrees, and the pavilion angle goes down by 2 degrees.

I wonder about the black areas between the arrows in the 11/12 o''clock view.

Bottom line.....shallower pavilion angles are generally better paired with steep crowns for best light return. So, a 40.4 pavilion would lkely need a 35.3 or 35.5 or so crown to balance it. I''d suspect the stone missed the modern AGS0 on light return, hence the old grading document.

 

[Regular Guy]

I think there''s apples and oranges.

Bless the vendor, but regardless of how close to good his apparatus is, ignoring the OGI report at least for the time being, if not entirely (because the AGS data, by itself would at least generally be expected to trump it...and this especially, by reputation, being the case with OGI), the question remains...for the AGS''s internal reporting showing the good proportions it does, what separate from the proportions themselves would explain the light performance being knocked out of 0, if that''s not walking too far away with assumptions (that that light performance criteria IS knocked out, explaining why the diamond isn''t partnered with the newer report).

 

[noobie]

Date: 1/31/2006 6:34:03 PM
Author: Regular Guy

the question remains...for the AGS''s internal reporting showing the good proportions it does, what separate from the proportions themselves would explain the light performance being knocked out of 0, if that''s not walking too far away with assumptions (that that light performance criteria IS knocked out, explaining why the diamond isn''t partnered with the newer report).

Yes, RG, that''s why I''m puzzled. I can''t seem to find the new AGS cut proportuions, but if I punch the angles into the HCA from the AGS report, I get a result without the AGS 0 box. At a pavillion angle of 40.4, the proportions fall outside, but the HCA score is still good.

Can anyone confirm if 40.6 pavillion with 55% table is within AGS 0?

Anyways, this is really more of a theoretical question. The stone is not priced as a super ideal H&A, but is no screaming bargain either, so I guess it''s fairly priced. The real test will be the in person visual inspection regardless of the angles and ratings. I have a super duper H&A of the same size to compare it with, so it will be a good test. Bottom line, if it looks great, I''ll keep it regardless of theoretical AGS 0 or 1. If it doesn''t live up to expectations, it''lll go back regardless of what the cert says.

However, it is fun to ask and try to answer these types of questions.

 

[belle]

Date: 2/1/2006 5:42:28 PM
Author: noobie

Can anyone confirm if 40.6 pavillion with 55% table is within AGS 0?

maybe...if it had a 35.5-37.0 ca

 

[Lynn B]

OK... the plot thickens. Look at this thread...

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/step-2-of-100-diamond-purchased.39351/

If you click in the first post on the link to his stone, and then click on the cert, it''s an AGS cert dated 10/3/05 with (unless I am losing my mind) NO cut grade information whatsoever. Nada, nothing, zip. Even the OLD certs at least said SOMETHING about cut grade, no?!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 2/1/2006 10:07:10 PM
Author: Lynn B
OK... the plot thickens. Look at this thread...

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/step-2-of-100-diamond-purchased.39351/

If you click in the first post on the link to his stone, and then click on the cert, it''s an AGS cert dated 10/3/05 with (unless I am losing my mind) NO cut grade information whatsoever. Nada, nothing, zip. Even the OLD certs at least said SOMETHING about cut grade, no?!

Lynn, that''s becuase it''s a Diamond Quality Report (DQR), not a Diamond Quality Document (DQD).

Under the old AGS0 system, there were 2 levels of documentation. One was the DQR (B-level paper that didn''t give cut grade), and the other was DQD (A-level paper that did give cut grade, proportions, etc.)

THEN AGS amended their cut gradiing system. Now new AGS0 graded light performance as part of achieve AGS0 grading. Some dealers balked at that, and have been subsequently allowed to opt for the old grading document (thereby allowing them to bill the stone as an AGS0 to those who don''t realize the system''s been modified).

So now there are 3 grading reports: The "new" DQD (cut grade dependent on light performance and other measurements), the "old" DQD (cut grade that doesn''t require light performance standards), and the DQR (grading report which doesn''t grade cut at all.)

I personally think allowing this is a mistake on AGS''s part. I think it allows dealers to mislead consumers who don''t know better, and to charge a premium for stones that aren''t TRULY "top shelf". I think it also devalues the distinction of AGS0.

 

[noobie]

Date: 2/1/2006 6:35:13 PM
Author: belle

Date: 2/1/2006 5:42:28 PM

Author: noobie


Can anyone confirm if 40.6 pavillion with 55% table is within AGS 0?

maybe...if it had a 35.5-37.0 ca

Belle,

Where''s that from? I thought 40.6 was OK at 34.3 to 35.2? At at pavillion angle of 40.4, I can see a 35.5 to 37 CA. But if we believe the AGS spec of 40.6, would this not be an AGS 0?

Lynn: That link is to a stone with a DQR, not a DQD. I don''t believe DQR''s carry any cut grades. That''s a new DQR as well.