Big News: AGS merging with GIA

[Victor Canera]

hi everyone, we just got an email from AGS today saying that they will not individually certify diamonds after December of this year and will be merging with GIA.
I thought it would be important to share this with the community. speak amongst yourselves I’m feeling veclemt

 

[Karl_K]

Is it April 1st in Oct???
That sux big time.

 

[holeydonut]

Dang, this does suck... I liked the extra digital ASET detail that AGS provided. I know some folks (probably not those on PS lol) think ASET is baloney. But I wonder if after this merger GIA will start to do the extra bells and whistles that AGS was doing around documenting light return.

It'd suck if GIA was simply buying AGS' book of business and shutting them down to erase competition without bettering their own certification process.

 

[Victor Canera]

As far as the lab reports, it seems that the AGS Ideal report will be an additional report above and beyond the GIA 4Cs grading. So it seems like the AGS information will live on but as a type of amendment to a GIA lab report. So there's a little bit of a bright side to this news.

 

[Victor Canera]

Here's a link to more information https://www.americangemsociety.org/agslab/

 

[holeydonut]

Victor Canera" data-source="post: 5183098" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

As far as the lab reports, it seems that the AGS Ideal report will be an additional report above and beyond the GIA 4Cs grading. So it seems like the AGS information will live on but as a type of amendment to a GIA lab report. So there's a little bit of a bright side to this news.

Got it, so if a super-ideal vendor still wants a "AGS Ideal® Report" that's still available from GIA in the future.

 

[marymm]

Wow! This merger surprises me, and although I am a big fan of GIA I am sorry to see AGS disappear as a separate entity and laboratory.

Thanks for sharing @Victor Canera

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Wow, that’s very interesting! I hope it will end up being good for consumers. Thanks for posting this, Victor!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

While this comes as big news to all of us, in a sense this is a logical evolution. GIA and AGS as sister organizations sharing common roots have always collaborated closely. And many consumers for years have been wanting "the best of both worlds" - GIA grading +AGS Light Performance analysis. But it has always been challenging and expensive for merchants to provide dual certification. Now it will become essentially automatic.

Progress isn't always linear. It comes in fits and starts!

 

[DejaWiz]

"GIA Platinum Light Performance Quality Diamond Document" is all I want to see out of this merger. If they do away with three dimensional light performance analysis, then GIA will be almost dead to me.

 

[RunningwithScissors]

Will AGS's Light Performance analysis under GIA ownership, still really be up to the same standards it has been pre-GIA ownership? That is what concerns me. I'm not at all convinced this is going to be a win for consumers. I guess its wait and see.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

"GIA Platinum Light Performance Quality Diamond Document" is all I want to see out of this merger. If they do away with three dimensional light performance analysis, then GIA will be almost dead to me.

I don't think this is the intention at all. That's why they have announced that starting in January GIA reports can be ordered with the AGS cut grade add-on. And they are keeping it affordable - $25.

This should be a big win for consumers.

 

[DejaWiz]

I don't think this is the intention at all. That's why they have announced that starting in January GIA reports can be ordered with the AGS cut grade add-on. And they are keeping it affordable - $25.

This should be a big win for consumers.

Thank you for the clarification and easing my mind, Bryan!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Will AGS's Light Performance analysis under GIA ownership, still really be up to the same standards it has been pre-GIA ownership? That is what concerns me. I'm not at all convinced this is going to be a win for consumers. I guess its wait and see.

The question of standards is not really a concern here. The AGS Light Performance grading system is a mathematical calculation. It uses the 3D scan of the diamond to run a ray tracing program on it to measure brightness, leakage, contrast, fire. The physics can't change, so unless they make changes to the grading structure it will remain exactly the same. I don't expect any surprises there.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thank you for the clarification and easing my mind, Bryan!

From the FAQ just released:

Is GIA providing the AGS Cut Grade?
No, the AGS Ideal® Report is a supplemental Light Performance digital report for qualifying diamonds, utilizing the GIA Cut Grade along with the AGS Light Performance grade. You can add a supplemental Light Performance digital report to GIA’s 4Cs grading reports for colorless, natural, or laboratory-grown diamonds.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Also from the FAQ:

Will the ASET® be on the Report?
Yes, the AGS Ideal® Report will be available with or without an ASET® image.

 

[RunningwithScissors]

While physics don't change, metrics and software are designed by people -- when people's interests or desires change, so can both their metrics and data analysis.

I think a loss of AGS grading is *potentially* not a good thing for consumers because simply, it is a loss of an independent, evaluative voice.

I'm not saying anything negative about GIA whatsoever. But all entities act in self interest -- you, me, GIA, the University my husband works for, the NRA. This is not a bad thing, the instinct keeps us alive.

The problem I see here is that GIA may have an interest in not having some of the wide range of the XXX graded diamonds look "not so great" on paper if those diamonds come back with a "meh" score on a light performance test. I would think it would be embarrassing for them if half or more of their XXX's put to the test seem like duds.

I'm not questioning GIA's integrity, I AM saying there will be pressure for standards to change if those standards don't align with their interests. That's basic human/corporate nature.

 

[RunningwithScissors]

And for a purely personal consumer gripe, I wouldn't be at all surprised if in a few years time I'll have to get my AGS diamonds recerted with GIA in order to prove what they are for insurance, etc. Who's going to accept a (non-GIA) AGS report anymore? What a hassle.

 

[Rfisher]

From the FAQ just released:

Is GIA providing the AGS Cut Grade?
No, the AGS Ideal® Report is a supplemental Light Performance digital report for qualifying diamonds, utilizing the GIA Cut Grade along with the AGS Light Performance grade. You can add a supplemental Light Performance digital report to GIA’s 4Cs grading reports for colorless, natural, or laboratory-grown diamonds.

Did they give the parameters for what determines which diamonds “qualifying” ?

I wonder what it will be if not all GIA ex/ex/ex qualify?

or if the current parameters of what determines ex/ex/ex will be revised.

 

[Tonks]

Ok, I am skeptical and perhaps I am not understanding this new system. Is the Light Performance add on basically assigning the AGS cut grade but appending it to a GIA report?

My concern there is I thought that GIA utilized rounding in reports. So that the numbers reported were reported to the nearest (whatever they round to) rather than the actual number measured. Whereas AGS used actual numbers.

GIA and AGS have never seemed apples to apples to me. GIA XXX stones are not the same as AGS 000 stones (unless I have seriously misunderstood something). It did not at ALL seem like a coincidence to me that all the superideal vendors chose to have their stones certified via AGS.

My understanding was that the only area in which GIA was stricter than AGS was color, and that AGS color could often be reported one color grade higher than GIA.

So, how is this merger a good thing for consumers? How will we be able to reliably judge cut quality?

 

[holeydonut]

And for a purely personal consumer gripe, I wouldn't be at all surprised if in a few years time I'll have to get my AGS diamonds recerted with GIA in order to prove what they are for insurance, etc. Who's going to accept a (non-GIA) AGS report anymore? What a hassle.

Agreed, the FAQ doesn't mention it... but I think it's in the previous-AGS-consumers' interest that someone can pay a nominal fee to have the equivalent GIA + AGS Ideal® paperwork provided once the merger is complete.

Or at least, the GIA website be updated to allow someone to type in an AGS number and download an official new GIA+AGS PDF.

 

[denverappraiser]

Not merging, AGSL is closing. AGS, the membership society, is endorsing GIA, and GIA is going to offer an AGS light performance grade on GIA-graded stones for an additional $25 regardless of size. This will be an optional purchase and will be in addition to the GIA grade, not a replacement for it. The AGS Lab, which is already a separate entity from AGS, will disappear January 1, 2023.

AGS Laboratories Resource Page

Learn how AGS and GIA will advance our current collaboration in pursuit of innovation, serving today’s jewelry professionals and consumer protection missions.

www.americangemsociety.org

 

[Slickk]

And for a purely personal consumer gripe, I wouldn't be at all surprised if in a few years time I'll have to get my AGS diamonds recerted with GIA in order to prove what they are for insurance, etc. Who's going to accept a (non-GIA) AGS report anymore?

This is the first thought I had. Will AGS diamonds need to be certed by GIA now too?

 

[kenny]

What if

GIA grades one diamond G, but AGS grades it H? or vice versa?
Will that diamond get both reports, with conflicting grades.
The educated know nature does not produce distinctly-separate grades, rather a continuous graduation from D-Z.
Same question with clarity, will both labs have the same clarity grading criteria?
Might color and clarity specs be aligned to the exact same standards?

If AGS is non-profit, will it lose that status?

What about the zillions of (steep-deep so-called )GIA cut Excellents that do not qualify to be AGS 0?
Will GIA delete its Excellent cut grade, and hand those over to AGS for the top cut grade?
Is GIA going to upgrade their standards to those of AGS, or will AGS down grade theirs, or will GIA no longer grade any diamonds Excellent-rather pass them over to AGS for grading?

Is GIA buying AGS, or are they merging?
If it's a merger will top brass, and other duplicate employees, at AGS be on the layoff chopping block?
Will all employees of AGS change to working for GIA, or will they be paid by the completely-separate AGS accounting system?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Did they give the parameters for what determines which diamonds “qualifying” ?

I wonder what it will be if not all GIA ex/ex/ex qualify?

or if the current parameters of what determines ex/ex/ex will be revised.

I believe that may be a reference to the fact that not all shapes and/or facet arrangements are currently graded by the AGS system.

 

[Mlh]

Wow....this should be interesting....

 

[Texas Leaguer]

While physics don't change, metrics and software are designed by people -- when people's interests or desires change, so can both their metrics and data analysis.

I think a loss of AGS grading is *potentially* not a good thing for consumers because simply, it is a loss of an independent, evaluative voice.

I'm not saying anything negative about GIA whatsoever. But all entities act in self interest -- you, me, GIA, the University my husband works for, the NRA. This is not a bad thing, the instinct keeps us alive.

The problem I see here is that GIA may have an interest in not having some of the wide range of the XXX graded diamonds look "not so great" on paper if those diamonds come back with a "meh" score on a light performance test. I would think it would be embarrassing for them if half or more of their XXX's put to the test seem like duds.

I'm not questioning GIA's integrity, I AM saying there will be pressure for standards to change if those standards don't align with their interests. That's basic human/corporate nature.

I don't think GIA is changing their cut grade system. And the requests for AGS Ideal addendum reports will probably be self-limiting to the better GIA Ex stones.

An analog to this is that you could always order an AGS report without the light map(s). For diamonds that made Ideal but did not have the best 3D symmetry you would probably not opt for the light map.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

What if

GIA grades one diamond G, but AGS grades it H? or vice versa?
Will that diamond get both reports, with conflicting grades.
The educated know nature does not produce distinctly-separate grades, rather a continuous graduation from D-Z.
Same question with clarity, will both labs have the same clarity grading criteria?
Might color and clarity specs be aligned to the exact same standards?

There will not be dual grading of color and clarity. The GIA system and report will be the same. An optional AGS Ideal report (light performance cut grade only) will be available, presumably only if the diamond makes it through the AGS ray tracer as Ideal.

 

[SandyK]

(Just a side note that I love PS; when I saw the thread title I was like oh man, this is big news!!! ….And then I laughed thinking about the response I would get from anyone in my non-PS life if I shared this *big* news, haha)

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I think this is good for consumers in that if this works the way I think it will, it will have the effect of segmenting the overly broad GIA Ex category and highlighting those stones in the sweet spot. Which will mitigate the complaints about the system as being too broad and forgiving.

It may even have the effect of encouraging more cutters to aim for the center instead of the margins.

GIA's reach could enable the AGS Light Performance system to finally penetrate more deeply.

It may also be a quantum leap into cut grading of fancies which GIA has long said was coming. But a 2D parameter based system was never going to be practical.

Too optimistic??