HCA?! More to think about? What do you think of this tool?

[tracys126]

Ok, so if you find an ideal cut diamond, in the proportions you like, and the size you like, and it only scores a .9 ex on the HCA, what then?

A smaller size with a better rating on the HCA?

Wow, this process is not easy! Just when you think you are getting somewhere, you have to consider another aspect.

I need to go watch the Sopranos and stop thinking about diamonds.

 

[belle]

.9 is a pretty darn near perfect score...if there could be such a thing. it sounds like you already have what you are looking for.

 

[tracys126]

NO WAY! Really?! So 1 - 1.5s aren''t better?

Ah,maybe the lower the score the better? Der. I am tired

 

[belle]

there is not really a ''better'' in this ideal range. having a lower score is not the goal. with increasingly lower scores (closer to ''0'') the angle combinations become extreme and not necessarily pleasing to the eye. you are not going to notice a visiual difference between .9 and 1.0 or 1.5 overall. there may be differences in the diamonds due to minor facet configurations or optical symmetry, but all else equal, they will look the same.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

If at first you don''t succeed,
try reading the damm manual
http://diamonds.pricescope.com/ideal.asp

 

[sunkist]

No, I don''t think it''s the lower, the better. But .9 is really close to 1. So you''ve probably found a great stone!

 

[jasontb]

muahahahahaha

 

[tracys126]

Hi Gary,

I read the manual but still wasn''t clear how a .9 would do compared to a 1.4. Should I be looking for something between 1 -2?

Sorry, it''s just one more factor that is making my mind mush.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You can have all sorts of 1.0''s.
1 BIC shallow crown bright stone
1 shallow TIC
1 deeper TIC
1 FIC
What do you want it for - pendant or ring? - how old are you - how good is your eyesight?

You are the greatest variable.

 

[tracys126]

Ha! I am 31, my eyesight is perfect (as good as a loupe J/K

Here are the specs on the one I was thinking of..

It will be for a ring, stand-alone solitaire...

1.71 H VS2

HCA -- 0.9-EX
vg-ex-ex-ex 1 59.6% 58% 34° 40.3° thn-sl thk f no ex ex no 7.77*7.80*4.64


If I can find someone to put it in this Ritani band...

 

[Mara]

the ritani ring looks beautiful!

the specs on that stone are not my first choice for a ring, the stone is a little shallowish, BUT it does have very nice numbers for a shallowish make...so it'd most likely be a knockout and not remotely close to a dud. but it really depends on what you prefer....are you looking for a typical TIC ideal or something that looks larger than it is, at maybe a bit of compromise on the cut quality. there's always a debate around here on what people find beautiful or what they should be looking for in a stone, it's so personal.

have you seen it in person? i would suggest that if you can, before you buy...maybe have it sent to a local appraiser for you to take a look at?

 

[tracys126]

Mara, good advice. Thank you!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

you are getting about 10 points of spread for free with that stone - but it will look darkish inside the table from less than 10 inches viewing distance.

If that worries you then look for an X that is closer to the white AGS box on the HCA chart

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/10/2006 3:51:37 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


If that worries you then ...

He, he, Garry... isn't everything a worry before the darn little objects behind the numbers get to be seen ?

 

[tracys126]

Gary,

Thanks! Er, what does this mean?

"X that is closer to the white AGS box on the HCA chart"

Tracy

PS. I really appreciate your help.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 4/10/2006 1:14:24 PM
Author: tracys126
Gary,

Thanks! Er, what does this mean?

''X that is closer to the white AGS box on the HCA chart''

Tracy

PS. I really appreciate your help.

Tracy,

Top image shows the X outside the white AGS box.
Bottom shows the X inside the white AGS box.

 

[tracys126]

Hi John,

THANK YOU THANK YOU! Where can I find a resource that shows me what these findings mean?

I''ll look at the manual.

Thanks!
Tracy

 

[Rod]

Hey Tracy,

My pet rock has very similar proportions to the stone you are referencing. It's not an "ideal" cut, but one that is quite beautiful. And when I ran my stones measurements through HCA, it scored quite nicely. Which is a good thing, because the stone is a knock-out.

There are some who have issues with shallower larger tabled diamonds. I think as long as the proportions score well and visually you find it beautiful, you'll get a diamond that sparkles like crazy and appears a bit larger than it's siblings who are deeper.

Just another perspective to consider..........

 

[tracys126]

Hi, Thanks for the reply. What did your diamond score on the HCA. Is the table darker up close like Gary mentioned?

Tracy

 

[Rod]

Of course no two stone''s are 100% alike, but my stone''s numbers have similarities to your stones numbers. My stone scored a 1.2 and I would not say the table''s darker.

 

[tracys126]

Thank you!

 

[Mara]

tracy, this is why i would really suggest seeing a stone like this in person...and be sure to compare to a few other ideal cuts so you know what the different visual performances are! then you can figure out what your eye likes. i personally don''t like the sacrifice in fire to get more white brilliance but some prefer it.

 

[tracys126]

Mara, You are right...Here is the case in point (see pic) One is 1.71 the other 1.65


I am having them send the diamonds to an appraiser so I can see them in person. How cool is that!?