Regular Guy
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,962
1) First of all, it is a possible marketing concept, introduced here, where the idea is proposed that a class of diamonds be made available for which the analysis has already been imputed, and for which ideal could be assigned for each of them from at least: AGS, GIA and HCA.
2) Perhaps the real question is explicated here by Ana, and where she suggests we make a new thread, based on this question:
"If the core of the question is "How much does the HCA miss for not including minor facets'", THAT I would love to know myself."
3) The proposal is perhaps really for the ideal solution, since a VEN solution is not an "ideal" solution, but, rather, one of trying to keep one's head above water in the midst of some indecision, and where there's a desire to conservatively adopt something all experts can agree upon, and the idea was modelled here earlier by me, too. The more ideal solution is a unified one, and incorporates more data. Maybe Sergi is working on it? Garry has implied he's realized the large number of variables is troublesome. But, now, GIA will have introduced some of them (minor facet data), shortly, and there's a natural desire to use them. They in fact use them, but their application has widely, already, been criticized here. It has been proposed that just the HCA and an idealscope can cover this shortfall for additional info, and of course, this has been challenged. For my purposes, an automated system, that can review proportions, and be called upon to do as much selecting as weeding would be desirable. (If I'm not mistaken, it is the principle logic driving NiceIce's strategy for shopping, and so the idea here would be to build on it, but expand it, in an HCA sort of way).
In the meantime, how much do we need VEN 0?
2) Perhaps the real question is explicated here by Ana, and where she suggests we make a new thread, based on this question:
"If the core of the question is "How much does the HCA miss for not including minor facets'", THAT I would love to know myself."
3) The proposal is perhaps really for the ideal solution, since a VEN solution is not an "ideal" solution, but, rather, one of trying to keep one's head above water in the midst of some indecision, and where there's a desire to conservatively adopt something all experts can agree upon, and the idea was modelled here earlier by me, too. The more ideal solution is a unified one, and incorporates more data. Maybe Sergi is working on it? Garry has implied he's realized the large number of variables is troublesome. But, now, GIA will have introduced some of them (minor facet data), shortly, and there's a natural desire to use them. They in fact use them, but their application has widely, already, been criticized here. It has been proposed that just the HCA and an idealscope can cover this shortfall for additional info, and of course, this has been challenged. For my purposes, an automated system, that can review proportions, and be called upon to do as much selecting as weeding would be desirable. (If I'm not mistaken, it is the principle logic driving NiceIce's strategy for shopping, and so the idea here would be to build on it, but expand it, in an HCA sort of way).
In the meantime, how much do we need VEN 0?
300x240.png)