Hello,
My search so far has been E-F color stones with SI1, SI2 clarity with zero fluorescence, excellent cut grade by GIA, putting in the range for table and depth provided some and I have been using the HCA to rule out which stones to consider and which ones not to among the GIA excellent cut stones. While doing this I have asked for help from a fairly well known person in the industry asking for advice on some stones that are spot on in the proportions but have cloud inclusion with SI clarity, and she recommended me stones that all score 4.0 and above and when i asked if this should be a concern, the person responded with:
"We don't put much stock in the HCA tool. This is why we don't like it.
It's not that it isn't accurate, but that it's poorly used. Let's say
you would give a diamond a point system. Out of a hundred, this is how
I would weight it.
1) Diamond's general cut (a decently cut diamond that is proportionate
and brilliant) - 25pts
2) Diamond Size - 25pts
3) Eye cleanliness- 25pts
4) Color - 13 pts
5) Fluorescence, girdle, polish, symmetry, etc - 7pts
6) detailed cut (what the HCA would be useful for) - 5pts
So HCA can help you figure out how to differentiate between diamonds
that are equal on the first 95pts. The problem is that the HCA is a
cool tool that gives you nice neat numbers to make a decision. People
start to focus on it and end up sacrificing on far more important
issues."
Is using the HCA to rule out bad vs good among GIA excellent cut with no fluorescence a bad idea or what is going on?
My search so far has been E-F color stones with SI1, SI2 clarity with zero fluorescence, excellent cut grade by GIA, putting in the range for table and depth provided some and I have been using the HCA to rule out which stones to consider and which ones not to among the GIA excellent cut stones. While doing this I have asked for help from a fairly well known person in the industry asking for advice on some stones that are spot on in the proportions but have cloud inclusion with SI clarity, and she recommended me stones that all score 4.0 and above and when i asked if this should be a concern, the person responded with:
"We don't put much stock in the HCA tool. This is why we don't like it.
It's not that it isn't accurate, but that it's poorly used. Let's say
you would give a diamond a point system. Out of a hundred, this is how
I would weight it.
1) Diamond's general cut (a decently cut diamond that is proportionate
and brilliant) - 25pts
2) Diamond Size - 25pts
3) Eye cleanliness- 25pts
4) Color - 13 pts
5) Fluorescence, girdle, polish, symmetry, etc - 7pts
6) detailed cut (what the HCA would be useful for) - 5pts
So HCA can help you figure out how to differentiate between diamonds
that are equal on the first 95pts. The problem is that the HCA is a
cool tool that gives you nice neat numbers to make a decision. People
start to focus on it and end up sacrificing on far more important
issues."
Is using the HCA to rule out bad vs good among GIA excellent cut with no fluorescence a bad idea or what is going on?