AGS 0 Proportions Only Rated 3.3 on HCA?

[jgh12]

Hi Everyone,

Pricescope is a great resource and I''ve been doing a lot of research on it. Before submitting my first post I wanted to make sure I was as educated as possible so I wouldn''t waste anyone''s time with questions previously answered. However, I recently purchased a diamond online and would like to get all of your opinions to help ease my mind. Here are the specifics on the diamond:

F
SI1
1.15
6.73 - 6.69 x 4.18
Pol: Ex
Sym: Ex
Florescence: None
Depth: 62.3% (GIA) / 62 (Sarin)
Table: 57% (GIA) / 56.5 (Sarin)
Crown Angle: 35.3 (Sarin)
Pavilion Angle: 41 (Sarin)
Culet: 0.6% (Sarin)
Girdle: Thin – Slightly Thick, Faceted (GIA) / 1.5% (Sarin)

All factors fall into AGS 0 proportions. However, when I plug the data into the Holloway Cut Adviser’s software, the calculations come out to be:

Light return: Very good
Fire: Very good
Scintillation: Good
Spread: Very good
Total visual performance: 3.3 – Very Good – Worth buying if price is right

The price paid was $5,600 from Diamond on Web. Do yall think I got a good deal?

I know its hard to judge something without seeing it so I’ll do my best to describe it. All the inclusions are located in one region, but its still “eye clean” (at least for my untrained eyes). I brought it to a random jeweler and he told me that I got a decent deal probably because it was a “weak SI1” and that it is slightly deep.

That’s about all I can say about it. Hopefully it’ll give yall enough of an idea to provide me your feedback. Oh yea, can someone tell me why the depth comes up different on the GIA and Sarin report? The difference between GIA and Sarin for the table makes sense, but the difference in depth is confusing. Thanks everyone for your time.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[Regular Guy]

Hi Jason,

Though a novice, and one easily sold a bill of good by a good rap, I do tend to think the HCA tool has been put together to provide useful analysis. This piece in Garry Holloway''s HCA site gives some background to the variance you''ve experienced with your AGS0 grade, and "very good" score on the HCA.

Using the search by cut option here, I see 4 diamonds of note, when matching on factors of color and clarity, and constraining between 1.1 & 1.2 for size:

The comparable diamonds (3) scoring 0 - 2 on the HCA cost $7K to $7500.

The one comparable diamond scoring as "very good" on the HCA costs $6K

Very Good is at least that, you presumably have the additional imprimatur of AGS0, and with "very good" being defined as good value if the price is right...I''d say you did do pretty well.

Also, not sure about the sarin variance. Though generally sarin is known to vary in measurements up to 2/10 of a degree, this must be qualified by the quality of the sarin device, at least in part, itself, as they have cheaper and more expensive models. Still, although I can see why you''re more concerned about depth than table measures, since the depth makes you more on the cusp for AGS0, your table is really more out of wack for the disparity. Still, table''s tend to not effect performance to the degree that crown & pavilions do, and for better or worse, you have no dissonant scores there.

With regards,

 

[Mara]

First off, AGS0 specs does not mean that the diamond will be a beautiful stone or score well on the HCA. That's a misconception that I think sometimes people have...I used to have it too. aka well if AGS grades cut, wouldn't AGS0 be the cream of the crop regardless of what other instruments say.

But that's not the case. AGS0 is just referring to a RANGE of specs and there may be 100 combinations that are stunning and another 100 that won't be as nice.

In this case, the crown angle doesn't seem to work that well with the pav angle on paper, aka for a 41 pav angle, HCA would probably be happier with a 34.5 crown angle rather than a 35.3 Also HCA does not like 41 as a pav angle. If it were 40.9, it would view this stone more favorably. Lastly, the depth at 62.3 may still be within AGS0 specifications but it's not what I would be interested in, having seen stones that have a bigger depth vs those who don't...I prefer those with smaller depths more between 60-61.

When I run #'s on HCA, if you change crown angle to 34.5 and leave all other specs the same, the score changes to 2.0. If you modify that depth to 62 and also modify pav angle to 40.9, it moves to 1.7. So you can easily play around with the HCA to see what you want to see and then find a stone that fits that spec if it's really important to you.

However, in many cases it's just a preference, aka what your eye perceives to be beautiful. If this stone looks beautiful to you, it doesn't matter what the HCA says. Hope this helps.

Lastly for the Sarin differences, why are you confused about the depth variance? There could be rounding up or down so if one says 62.3% then it's not unheard of for the other to note 62%. That is a VERY small difference. Sometimes we see larger differences...Sarin machines are each calibrated differently and done by humans, aka there is room for error.

 

[jgh12]

Thanks you both for your insightful feedback. It seems like you both feel the HCA rating is very important. If so, do yall feel I should return the current diamond I have and get something smaller that''s rated higher on the HCA? From what I can tell, this diamond on White Flash seems okay:

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-629949.htm#

The faint fluorescence and the SI2 rating bothers me, but its scoring a 1.7 on HCA. The list price is $4,900. Of the two diamonds, which do you feel is a better buy?

Thanks again,
Jason

 

[Regular Guy]

Jason,

That''s a trade I would make. Though I might ask the people at WF to help you, I might suggest that, to the extent the SI2 and fluorescence do concern you, this option could take away your pain (and still at a savings to what you had planned to spend); maybe see which of the two they might recommend?

Regards,

 

[fire&ice]

Yeah, the whiteflash stone may be worth a look. Ask about how eyeclean the stone is.

 

[belle]

''faint'' fluorescence can not be seen under normal viewing conditions. there may be a chance that the stone ''glows'' a bit under black lights, otherwise you will never notice it.
if the stone checks out eye clean, i think you''ve found a winner!

 

[jgh12]

Okay, I called but Brian was out of town so I spoke with Denise. She placed it on hold and is going to call me back tomorrow with the report on how "eye clean" it is. Do yall think I should wait to speak with Brian or will Denise have good enough eyes to judge the rock?

Going by the ideal scope image it seems like there is a lot of pink. That means there''s light leakage right? Is there cause to worry about this? I believe I read somewhere that as long as its evenly spread then it should be alright. Is that true?

Lastly, is the special "pricescope" price as low as they go or do you think they''ll discount it further? I''ve never used WF so I don''t know how they work. Other companies usually go lower with wire transfer and even give additional discounts if a setting is purchased with it. Can someone share their insight knowledge on dealing with WF and the discounts they were able to get?

Thanks again,
Jason

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

All new AGS ideal''s will score very well now that AGS has changed its system to an HCA style proportion set.

 

[belle]

hey jgh,

there are several people at wf besides brian that can look over the stone for you and tell you about how eye clean it is.
that idealscope photo is one of the older ones, before they got their new system. it''s not showing light leakage with the pink, it''s just a different photo system.
as far as price, here is a recent link that you might find helpful.

 

[jgh12]

Hi everyone,

This has been very helpful. I''ve decided to return the purchased stone that only rated 3.3 on HCA and look for something with a better rating. The three stones I''ve narrowed it down to are:

Option 1
http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/diamond_Details.aspx?itemcode=GIA-13148293
Depth: 61
Table: 55.5
Crwn: 34.8
Pav: 40.9
HCA: 1.7 (ex-vg-vg-vg)
List Price: $4900
Option 2
http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=4376853
Depth: 62
Table: 57
Crwn: 35
Pav 40.8
HCA: 1.6 (ex-ex-ex-vg)
List Price: $4241
Option 3
http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=4376920
Depth: 61.5
Table: 57
Crwn: 34.2
Pav 40.8
HCA: 1.2 (ex-ex-ex-vg)
List Price: $4675

Here is some additional information worth mentioning:

Option 1:
GIA – Mar 04
Girdle 0.9%-1.4%
Faint Fluorescence
Pinpoints not shown
Option 2
AGS – Aug 04
Girdle 1.5%-2.2%
Possible cloud in table
Option 3
AGS Cert – Aug 04
Girdle 0.9%-2.4%
Polish is EX instead of ID
Feather inclusion and possible cloud

I’m not good at reading certificates, but you can reference them yourselves by following the links. The sales agents helping me at the stores are going to loupe the diamonds and call me back. Assuming all three options are “eye clean”, which would you choose and why? Is there anything else I should consider before making another purchase?

Thanks again,
Jason

 

[jgh12]

Thanks Belle. Unfortunately, my girlfriend is pretty color sensitive. However, neither of us have seen a G-H color H&A cut diamond. From what I''ve read online it seems like an H&A cut diamond could mask the color, but I''m hesitant to risk it with my girlfriend''s sensitive eyes. What do you think? Is it worth paying the same amount of money for a H&A cut diamond of lower color or should I pay the same amount for an ideal cut diamond of higher color?

Also, the person from dirtcheapdiamonds called back and said that Option 3 was much better than Option 2 because the inclusions are white while Option 2 inclusions are black, but both are eye clean. Option 3 sounds good, but I''m worried about the wide spread in girdle width (0.9-2.4%), the "EX" polish instead of "ID", and the feather inclusion. Are these things a cause for concern?

I''m still on the fense with my choices. Each rock has its pros and cons. Which one would you guys recommend?

Cheers,
Jason

 

[strmrdr]

The whiteflash stone is sold.
You the one that bought it?

Out of the dcd stones the option 3 sounds better.

 

[jgh12]

Yes, I have the WF diamond on hold. Today is the day I need to make a decision. Option 1 and Option 2 both have black inclusions but are eye clean. Option 2 has a slightly better HCA rating and is a couple hundred less than Option 1 because its one color grade lower. Here''s what I''m thinking:

Save money and go with Option 2
Go for convenience and pick Option 1 (They carry the setting I want)
Go for best HCA and pick Option 3, but its not AGS000...How important is polish?
Go for quality and pick belle''s suggestion of an H&A cut

Too many choices...

 

[belle]

hey jason,
i will give you my honest, first hand experience......cut makes all the difference.
i would pick a lower color super ideal cut over a higher color average cut any day.
i consider myself very color sensitive and yet, i cannot tell the difference between a well cut 'f' or 'h' face up.
yes, you may see a *tinge* of color IF you view it through the pavilion and IF you are specifically looking for it there, but the overall color will be just as white as the 'f'.
focus on the cut.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/14/2005 1:05:35 PM
Author: belle
hey jason,

i will give you my honest, first hand experience......cut makes all the difference.

i would pick a lower color super ideal cut over a higher color average cut any day.

i consider myself very color sensitive and yet i cannot tell the difference between a well cut ''f'' or ''h'' face up.

yes, you may see a *tinge* of color IF you view it through the pavilion and IF you are specifically looking for it there, but the overall color will be just as white as the ''f''.

focus on the cut.

second that.
Id up the cut if it was me.

 

[Lynn B]

I third

what Belle and Storm are saying. Don't sacrifice on cut. After that, there will usually have to be a little "give and take" in choosing any diamond. A little size vs. a little money vs. a difference in clarity grade vs. a difference in color grade... and it goes on and on! The idea is to find the best balance that meets your needs (and wants). But remember, you are now looking at the cream of the diamond crop -- they will most likely ALL be gorgeous! So don't stress TOOOOO much

(easier said than done, believe me, I KNOW!) ... and try not to lose sight of the "fun" factor!

Keep us posted!

Lynn

 

[jgh12]

Thanks Ira. The three options are not listed in the "search by cut" because I have them on hold, but you can still view them from the links I provided.

So you think I should go with Option 1 even though Option 3 scores better on the HCA and has white inclusions instead of black? Both are basically the same price. Speaking of price, DCD did not warn against Option 2, but merely stated that Option 3 was a better choice between the two because of the white inclusions.

It seems like you like Option 3, but recommended Option 1 because of the convenience right? Yes, going with WF makes things easier. If I went with DCD I would need to send the diamond to Superbcert for their Tiffany Knife Edge setting. However, a hassle is a small thing to sacrifice for a quality diamond. My problem is that I don''t know which of the three will look better.

Here''s what''s going on in my head.

Option 3 has white inclusions but isn''t AGS000
Option 2 performs better than Option 1 in HCA and is more affordable
Option 1 has the best color, but lowest HCA score among the three

Doh.

How important is polish anyways? Should I stay away from Option 3 because of it?

Thanks again,
Jason

 

[belle]

there is no ''best'' score under 2.0 on the hca. sometimes, especially around here, people like to try and ''split hairs'' using hca. there is no reason for it. hca was designed to rule out poor performing diamonds. period. you can''t pick one ideal that is better than another ideal using it. that''s not what it is for. the bottom line is, all of the diamonds that you have chosen are ideal. you need to decide which one is best for you.

 

[hoorray]

I''m intrigued by #3 and #1. You will never see the difference between Ex and ID polish, so I would forget that difference. Unless I''m just late to the party, and you''ve already purchased #1, it shows as sold on the web site when I check. I would check on the details of the inclusions, asking for magnified pics and if the feature breaks the surface or is an integrity risk. #1 seems like the safer bet, but I''m sure they are both beautiful.

 

[jgh12]

Arrows

 

[jgh12]

Hearts

 

[jgh12]

OGI Megascope

 

[jgh12]

Ideal Scope

 

[jgh12]

Feather