- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,657
Paul and me have had some offline comms about this.Paul of JannPaul offers his most recent insights and opinions on the merger:
just an update cause i see alot of speculation on pricescope and this open to be quoted by me, finished my meeting with both labs.
1.) GIA will not be changing their cut grading system, if anyone was wishing for a new lab report that combines the 2, like incorporating the aset into the gia cert/ creating a premium gia cert that's not ever happening and confirmed.
2.) all recertifications, or resubmissions will be fresh as a whole to GIA. if there's any discrepancies found(this opens a huge pandora box) between the 2 labs now, there will be no support given, it'll be up to the retailer to explain to their clients. (sorry my personal opinion is that GIA threw all ex ags clients just under a bus. The team in ags fought to push through as much as possible of their outstanding services over the years, but alot of it was denied
3) past submissions, recertifications, will have to go through the 3 exc. if you were a previous agsl vendor, and need to recertify for your client or your own past diamonds, everything will rerun through the whole new gia system brand new, no subsidy, full charge as a brand new submission no support is given, should you have any discrepancies that's all on you.
4.) all AGSL vendors of the past, knows the lengths AGSL goes for their vendors, cut scans will be sent first to evaluated and studied for the possibility of ideal 0 light performance, agsl will then provide a comprehensive zenith and guide for them if or not and how to make the ags 0 ideal cut grade. this service is entirely terminated.
5.) if you choose to go for the ags ideal light performance report + GIA, and you're speculating that new vendors would jump on this bandwagon, there's is no support given. If say you choose to submit 2000 stones with gia + the new ags submission report, first you'd need to make the gia 3exc grade. there will be no support given from gia nor ags on what will meet the ideal 0 mark anymore. if 1000 stones do not meet the criteria for agsl 0 light performance, you will be reimbursed half of the price of the you paid for the 25$ usd of that 1000 stones(lol). we're talking about just round brilliants alone, forget even fancies. so if you're unfamiliar with the ags ideal 0 metric of the past. you're pretty much gambling.
6) the new ags light report digital really just looks... vendors might as well just take their own aset scope at this point.
this is as much as i'm allowed to say.
read between the lines: that im extremely unhappy with what's going on and all the marketing fluff. the team in AGSL especially their RnD team are fabulous fantastic hard working people, they've had tons of really innovative rnd works they were working on last year that i know of, that could help immensely in transparency and cut innovation for both products and consumer protection, that was all cancelled. Those who has had the honor to work with the rnd team before know that they're extremely passionate people at their work who go far and beyond with the passion of shipley's TRUE vision.
One cannot support a broken system if the broken system is confirmed in place to stay. that's all I can say.
Paul Hung
Ceo of JANNPAUL
Sure the AGS team are going to be hard done by.
So are all the ex GIA color graders replaced by colorimeters and the clarity graders replaced by IBM & AI. And the AGS lab grading team.
That is life.
If anyone ever submitted 2,000 stones to AGS they would be a going concern.
The lab seems to have been unpopular with many (most?) of the AGS members. How many wholesale members used it?
How many retailer members sold lots of AGS 0 diamonds?
On the positive side, GIA may just be able to develop a fancy cut grading system using AGS research. If they do, maybe they will keep some of the R&D team? Hope so.
Good on IGI for starting a fancy shape grade, even if it is not perfect because clearly that prompted GIA to make the move.