- Joined
- Jul 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,033
If PS participants were telling consumers that a stone with an HCA score over 2 (I believe that''s the threshold) will definitely not be beautiful, I would say it''s a big problem and very misleading, but I have not observed that happening here. Diamonds can score poorly on HCA and still be beautiful and I agree that it''s important that consumers understand this. But as a rejection tool for internet buyers who are in the market for a modern round brilliant and know that what they want is maximum light return and have the budget to support it, I think HCA provides these consumers with a level of comfort when buying sight-unseen, as long as the style of cutting that HCA favors is what the consumer is after. How will a consumer know if this is what they like? I have no clue how to answer that apart from them simply taking the responsibility to research for themselves, which is where the gazillion different photos and threads on PS comes in handyDate: 4/9/2010 2:21:06 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Date: 4/9/2010 1:45:36 PM
Author: ericad
Date: 4/9/2010 12:53:53 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
Date: 4/9/2010 12:11:29 PM
Author: ericad
I get David''s point about the term ''leakage'' being a word that conjures up a negative image but that some leakage doesn''t always equate to an unattractive diamond - it''s a case of ''it depends''. Seems to me that when educating buyers, we might say that some leakage may be tolerable to many buyers, the degree of how much is ''allowable'' is complex and depends on the buyer''s personal preferences, budget considerations, etc. and that one would caution buyers that leakage follows a continuum, the extreme end of which results in windowing. Just like the extreme end of obstruction results in a dark diamond with little contrast or brightness, but that doesn''t mean that all obstruction is bad and to be avoided.
Yes, it is a continuum, leakage and obstruction depending on the extent. But how does someone, who coming here asking for help generally means he/she knows almost nothing about diamonds, does not see many diamonds, knows what to look for, what is obstruction and what is leakage, what jewelry lighting and other lightings effect have on these optical artifacts and what he prefers?
Generally stones with leakage will be stones that are cut with steeper pavilion than ''ideal cut'', heavier stones with less light returns, while stones with leakage will be with shallower pavilion, lighter stone. We generally advice against both, especially for rounds as there are so many that are cut without these 2 ''problems''. If you know what you want, with regards to obstruction and leakages, then choose what you want why would you care or ask for others'' opinions?
Very true, stone, it all comes down to educating the consumer, which is why he/she is on PS in the first place. The participants on PS and tools like HCA are the best resources any consumer could ask for.
I must strongly disagree Erica.
The HCA is controversial for many reasons.
One clear cut bad use is when someone loves their diamond, plugs it into HCA and suddenly finds out their eyes have been lying to them all these years.
Or, as has happened right here, consumers read one sided discussions, and decide that HCA trumps GIA.
That''s a huge mistake IMO.
There is a very great possibility those same consumers might very well eliminate stones they may have preferred based on their visual characteristics.NJDeac- it''s not quite a simple as you outlined- either stones ''perform better or they don''t. The whole issue of performance is NOT agree upon,.
I sincerely doubt that any professional in the field of diamonds would recommend trusting HCA more than GIA...maybe other than Garry..