How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamonds?

[Rockdiamond]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

You're very welcome Sara.
I see what you mean about the lighter circle in the table- I believe that the way it shows as a distinct feature is more a function of difficulty in photography, as opposed to something I saw IRL.
Same about looking flat- in real life, it was quite dimensional in the way it flashed the light.

Just a point to correct the record.
If I have ever said I don't like the look of patterned stones- or if I have ever implied that, it's not the case.
I can really appreciate the look- a lot.
I'm just saying that I prefer the less patterned look.

ccl- at the level which we operate, there's no "marketing" plans espoused by cutters- there's no discussion of any of the details we're debating here. We need to be a "big boy" and make up our own minds.
The cutter shows you the stones ( if you're a favored client) and it's up to the dealer purchasing the stones from the cutter to make their own choices. I mentioned the difference in "marketing" referring to the fact that the stones in question were specifically NOT allowed to flow into the broader NY market- rather they were shown only to preferred clients.

Even though we are a very important client to this particular cutter, they cut based on many factors.....but not my taste.
Maybe my appetite for certain stones might make them likely to show me that type of stones- but the rough - and how it plays out- is a far more prevalent factor in planning.
We did not sell the stone.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

You're very welcome Sara.
I see what you mean about the lighter circle in the table- I believe that the way it shows as a distinct feature is more a function of difficulty in photography, as opposed to something I saw IRL.
Same about looking flat- in real life, it was quite dimensional in the way it flashed the light.

Just a point to correct the record.
If I have ever said I don't like the look of patterned stones- or if I have ever implied that, it's not the case.
I can really appreciate the look- a lot.
I'm just saying that I prefer the less patterned look.

ccl- at the level which we operate, there's no "marketing" plans espoused by cutters- there's no discussion of any of the details we're debating here. We need to be a "big boy" and make up our own minds.
The cutter shows you the stones ( if you're a favored client) and it's up to the dealer purchasing the stones from the cutter to make their own choices. I mentioned the difference in "marketing" referring to the fact that the stones in question were specifically NOT allowed to flow into the broader NY market- rather they were shown only to preferred clients.

Even though we are a very important client to this particular cutter, they cut based on many factors.....but not my taste.
Maybe my appetite for certain stones might make them likely to show me that type of stones- but the rough - and how it plays out- is a far more prevalent factor in planning.
We did not sell the stone.

All this time you are the champion of the "assymetric 60t/60d" cut in round brilliants and not once did you connect the appearance you promote, with the strong possibility that it is a byproduct of weight saving shallow crown diamonds.

"Preferred Client" you are a local NY dealer, and lots of boutique outfits prefer no shipping, shorter memo times and to avoid the hassle of virtual listings especially on high value inventory. A lot of bravado to sell yourself as important. Preferred enough to be shown the stone, but not allowed to ask technical questions.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

Good point ccl- it's more accurate to say that the cutter is extremely important to us than the other way around. Hopefully it's mutual respect.
We can certainly ask questions- but some things are proprietary.

 

[John P]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

John- we are so on the same page regarding fine tuning the discussions to avoid acrimony.
I apologize for misreading the PA- I did see the correction- in light of your salient comments, I should have noted that.
Also see your point about the "obvious choice"- which I took to imply something other than what you meant to put out there.
Even that statement, to me, seems to position the resultant stone as a compromise to save weight, when I don't feel that's the case any more than any diamond is a compromise- but I know you'll add more content soon. I also agree that we share far more common ground than disagreements over a wide range of issues

Thank you for the clarification. I do believe the primary goal was to finish over 4 carats, which is logical. Cutting to the extreme limit of EX resulted in additional weight. A manufacturer likes to finish high in as many Cs as possible (carat weight always a prime consideration). And the best outcome for cut, which is completely in man's control, is to have cut-quality which overlaps the peak of multiple grading systems. In this case that was doable but it would have fallen under 4 carats.

Whether it was a compromise or not depends on your perspective:

Not a compromise: This is a 60/60 make, not usually sent for AGSL paper or targeted for AGSL-driven-markets. So it was not a compromise to go for GIA EX, achieve it with the least sacrifice of weight possible, and put a nice 4ct+ in the pipeline.

Yes a compromise: Brands like Lazare, Tiffany, Cartier and others for whom this would be outside the brand-parameters would either have executed it differently and yielded less, cut it the same way and sold it through a secondary channel, or resold the rough to another producer.

From our prior exchange:

In terms of the concept of beauty- and the concept of well cut....
Yes, I do have considerations about how perception of beauty is sometimes overlooked in discussions here on PS- but in this specific case, we're discussing assessing cut quality.

I trust GIA a lot- that's true- however I would not buy a stone simply becasue GIA graded the cut EX.
That is to say, I also have preferences, and the grade does encompass a variety of different styles of round brilliant, not all of which are my personal preference.
As it happens, I found a stone that is not typical in today's market. I am crazy about, it is GIA EX cut grade- and scores poorly on HCA, making it an interesting test case.
This discussion has also called into question the motivation behind the decision to cut the stone this way.
My point is that the stones within GIA EX that John ( or anyone) might select might not be the one I would pick- but that does not mean that it's not well cut. Just as I feel it's a mistake to eliminate stones based on where they sit within GIA EX, or by using HCA, I also believe that cut conscious consumers should indeed not assume they will love all stones GIA grades EX.
However it is safe to say that any stone receiving such grade is indeed well cut- and will be considered so by the trade at large. There's also no trade accepted discount for stones sitting at the outer edge of GIA's grade, as opposed to those smack in the middle. There may be a premium for stones that are cut to a certain tolerance and limited range of visuals- such as H&A or "boutique" brands of "super Ideal" cuts. This is more proprietary - associated with branding.

We're on the same page in many ways. The lab grade - regardless of lab - can be a good indicator but if I were choosing a diamond for my wife I would want more information before bringing it in to inspect for myself, and that inspection would be non-negotiable. I realize this goes against the "you-can-trust the lab report" attitude many in the trade would espouse.

Regarding the bold, it's again a matter of perspective. As I said before, you feel that way and that's cool. Others find its range too wide to trust it completely. Neither position is right or wrong; as long as you're buying the diamond for yourself, or showing it to a client who is using his/her own eyes you can decide what to trust for yourself, and so can your clients.

Also, as stated before, I believe the introduction of GIA's cut grade for round brilliants in 2006 was one of the best things ever to happen in our industry. It has increased global consumer awareness of cut and factories have adapted cut quality upwards (in general). Many professionals put their faith in it. But even GIA folks will agree that the system was designed to serve a whole planet. It is not a niche system and may not cater to everyone with niche tastes. Considering the wide range permitted, nobody should be surprised that not all cut-focused pros and consumer enthusiasts approve of the entire span of the grade.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

John- we are so on the same page regarding fine tuning the discussions to avoid acrimony.
I apologize for misreading the PA- I did see the correction- in light of your salient comments, I should have noted that.
Also see your point about the "obvious choice"- which I took to imply something other than what you meant to put out there.
Even that statement, to me, seems to position the resultant stone as a compromise to save weight, when I don't feel that's the case any more than any diamond is a compromise- but I know you'll add more content soon. I also agree that we share far more common ground than disagreements over a wide range of issues

Thank you for the clarification. I do believe the primary goal was to finish over 4 carats, which is logical. Cutting to the extreme limit of EX resulted in additional weight. A manufacturer likes to finish high in as many Cs as possible (carat weight always a prime consideration). And the best outcome for cut, which is completely in man's control, is to have cut-quality which overlaps the peak of multiple grading systems. In this case that was doable but it would have fallen under 4 carats.

Here we simply disagree- as I'm not as big a fan of AGSL (specifically as they'd exclude stones like this)- therefore personally I would not say that the "best outcome for cut" involves an overlap

Whether it was a compromise or not depends on your perspective:

Not a compromise: This is a 60/60 make, not usually sent for AGSL paper or targeted for AGSL-driven-markets. So it was not a compromise to go for GIA EX, achieve it with the least sacrifice of weight possible, and put a nice 4ct+ in the pipeline.

Yes a compromise: Brands like Lazare, Tiffany, Cartier and others for whom this would be outside the brand-parameters would either have executed it differently and yielded less, cut it the same way and sold it through a secondary channel, or resold the rough to another producer.

John- it's entirely possible you have inside information I'm unaware of- are you certain Tiffany, or Cartier have parameters that would exclude this stone?
If we're talking about certain internet sellers, or Lazare, yes, I agree that this type of stone will be excluded.
But I believe Tiffany does indeed carry 60/60 makes.

From our prior exchange:

In terms of the concept of beauty- and the concept of well cut....
Yes, I do have considerations about how perception of beauty is sometimes overlooked in discussions here on PS- but in this specific case, we're discussing assessing cut quality.

I trust GIA a lot- that's true- however I would not buy a stone simply becasue GIA graded the cut EX.
That is to say, I also have preferences, and the grade does encompass a variety of different styles of round brilliant, not all of which are my personal preference.
As it happens, I found a stone that is not typical in today's market. I am crazy about, it is GIA EX cut grade- and scores poorly on HCA, making it an interesting test case.
This discussion has also called into question the motivation behind the decision to cut the stone this way.
My point is that the stones within GIA EX that John ( or anyone) might select might not be the one I would pick- but that does not mean that it's not well cut. Just as I feel it's a mistake to eliminate stones based on where they sit within GIA EX, or by using HCA, I also believe that cut conscious consumers should indeed not assume they will love all stones GIA grades EX.
However it is safe to say that any stone receiving such grade is indeed well cut- and will be considered so by the trade at large. There's also no trade accepted discount for stones sitting at the outer edge of GIA's grade, as opposed to those smack in the middle. There may be a premium for stones that are cut to a certain tolerance and limited range of visuals- such as H&A or "boutique" brands of "super Ideal" cuts. This is more proprietary - associated with branding.

We're on the same page in many ways. The lab grade - regardless of lab - can be a good indicator but if I were choosing a diamond for my wife I would want more information before bringing it in to inspect for myself, and that inspection would be non-negotiable. I realize this goes against the "you-can-trust the lab report" attitude many in the trade would espouse.

Regarding the bold, it's again a matter of perspective. As I said before, you feel that way and that's cool. Others find its range too wide to trust it completely. Neither position is right or wrong; as long as you're buying the diamond for yourself, or showing it to a client who is using his/her own eyes you can decide what to trust for yourself, and so can your clients.

Also, as stated before, I believe the introduction of GIA's cut grade for round brilliants in 2006 was one of the best things ever to happen in our industry. It has increased global consumer awareness of cut and factories have adapted cut quality upwards (in general). Many professionals put their faith in it. But even GIA folks will agree that the system was designed to serve a whole planet. It is not a niche system and may not cater to everyone with niche tastes. Considering the wide range permitted, nobody should be surprised that not all cut-focused pros and consumer enthusiasts approve of the entire span of the grade.

John- not to beat a dead horse- but I'm not suggesting that buyers "trust" either GIA or AGSL cut grades if the parameter is "Will they love the stone". We both agree that "you can trust the lab report" blindly is a misplaced feeling of security- again this goes for AGS reports as well.
I am questioning the implication that there's knowledgeable, impartial diamond graders that would exclude this type of GIA EX cut grade stone from the realm of "really well cut stones"- it might not be their particular taste- but that does not mean it's not accepted by the trade, including "mavens" ( excluding many participating here) as an extremely well cut diamond

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

John- we are so on the same page regarding fine tuning the discussions to avoid acrimony.

Here we simply disagree- as I'm not as big a fan of AGSL (specifically as they'd exclude stones like this)- therefore personally I would not say that the "best outcome for cut" involves an overlap

AGSL doesn't exclude any proportion set for consideration in their performance grade..
There are many proportions of 60/60 that achieve AGS0, this particular one(PA41.8,CA32) would not due to the ring of weaker light return(low angle only)and leakage along the edge of the table. It would get dinged in leakage, brightness, contrast and possibly dispersion as well.

Whether it was a compromise or not depends on your perspective:

Not a compromise: This is a 60/60 make, not usually sent for AGSL paper or targeted for AGSL-driven-markets. So it was not a compromise to go for GIA EX, achieve it with the least sacrifice of weight possible, and put a nice 4ct+ in the pipeline.

Yes a compromise: Brands like Lazare, Tiffany, Cartier and others for whom this would be outside the brand-parameters would either have executed it differently and yielded less, cut it the same way and sold it through a secondary channel, or resold the rough to another producer.

John- it's entirely possible you have inside information I'm unaware of- are you certain Tiffany, or Cartier have parameters that would exclude this stone?
If we're talking about certain internet sellers, or Lazare, yes, I agree that this type of stone will be excluded.
But I believe Tiffany does indeed carry 60/60 makes.

From our prior exchange:

In terms of the concept of beauty- and the concept of well cut....
Yes, I do have considerations about how perception of beauty is sometimes overlooked in discussions here on PS- but in this specific case, we're discussing assessing cut quality.

I trust GIA a lot- that's true- however I would not buy a stone simply becasue GIA graded the cut EX.
That is to say, I also have preferences, and the grade does encompass a variety of different styles of round brilliant, not all of which are my personal preference.
As it happens, I found a stone that is not typical in today's market. I am crazy about, it is GIA EX cut grade- and scores poorly on HCA, making it an interesting test case.
This discussion has also called into question the motivation behind the decision to cut the stone this way.
My point is that the stones within GIA EX that John ( or anyone) might select might not be the one I would pick- but that does not mean that it's not well cut. Just as I feel it's a mistake to eliminate stones based on where they sit within GIA EX, or by using HCA, I also believe that cut conscious consumers should indeed not assume they will love all stones GIA grades EX.
However it is safe to say that any stone receiving such grade is indeed well cut- and will be considered so by the trade at large. There's also no trade accepted discount for stones sitting at the outer edge of GIA's grade, as opposed to those smack in the middle. There may be a premium for stones that are cut to a certain tolerance and limited range of visuals- such as H&A or "boutique" brands of "super Ideal" cuts. This is more proprietary - associated with branding.

We're on the same page in many ways. The lab grade - regardless of lab - can be a good indicator but if I were choosing a diamond for my wife I would want more information before bringing it in to inspect for myself, and that inspection would be non-negotiable. I realize this goes against the "you-can-trust the lab report" attitude many in the trade would espouse.

Regarding the bold, it's again a matter of perspective. As I said before, you feel that way and that's cool. Others find its range too wide to trust it completely. Neither position is right or wrong; as long as you're buying the diamond for yourself, or showing it to a client who is using his/her own eyes you can decide what to trust for yourself, and so can your clients.

Also, as stated before, I believe the introduction of GIA's cut grade for round brilliants in 2006 was one of the best things ever to happen in our industry. It has increased global consumer awareness of cut and factories have adapted cut quality upwards (in general). Many professionals put their faith in it. But even GIA folks will agree that the system was designed to serve a whole planet. It is not a niche system and may not cater to everyone with niche tastes. Considering the wide range permitted, nobody should be surprised that not all cut-focused pros and consumer enthusiasts approve of the entire span of the grade.

John- not to beat a dead horse- but I'm not suggesting that buyers "trust" either GIA or AGSL cut grades if the parameter is "Will they love the stone". We both agree that "you can trust the lab report" blindly is a misplaced feeling of security- again this goes for AGS reports as well.
I am questioning the implication that there's knowledgeable, impartial diamond graders that would exclude this type of GIA EX cut grade stone from the realm of "really well cut stones"- it might not be their particular taste- but that does not mean it's not accepted by the trade, including "mavens" ( excluding many participating here) as an extremely well cut diamond

The difference between the labs grading and your opinion is impartial graders don't grade to their taste or subjectively as you have done. They don't use comments like "superbly cut" or indicate a strong bias toward one particular look.

AGSL doesn't take into consideration optical symmetry like hearts and arrows, doesn't penalize longer or shorter lower halves and their metrics indicate no style or brand preference (that is why they did not include scintillation in their grading).

That is exactly what every grader at AGSL is doing, they are both knowledgeable and impartial, they are grading objective light performance and metrics.

AGSL Final Cut grade = Maximum(Sum(Brightness ,Dispersion ,Contrast ,Leakage ,Weight Ratio, Durability ,Tilt), Girdle, Culet, Symmetry, Polish)

First 7 are a cumulative deduction score.
IE (brightness 0.4, contrast 0.6, leakage 0.1 then overall light performance score 1.1) overall grade could not be higher than AGS1.

If a stone does not meet any of the light performance requirements above it won't meet AGS 0 standards.
Depending on the deviation it will get AGS1 or AGS2 or AGS3,4,5,6,7,8,9

You happen to have a wide tolerance for some LP metrics perhaps AGS 1 - 5 would be acceptable to you. That doesn't mean the grading isn't objective and consistent.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

You bring up a great point ccl.
My statement was incorrect- there are indeed impartial graders who would not categorize this type of stone as extremely well cut- these are people who follow AGS guidelines- and may indeed include a lot of the pros on this board..

But I think that still comes down to taste- even among experts- of which there are many that don't concur with AGSL in regards to cut grading.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

RD,

Here is an overlap of the AGSPGS with GIA grading for 60% table diamonds.
Letter grades are GIA proportion grading, number grades are from AGS Performance Grading Software (80% LGF and stars 55%, Girdle Bezel 3%)



From http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/gia&agspgs.phtml

26 GIA Ex - AGS0
2 GIA EX - AGS 1 (Shallow Crown)
4 GIA EX - AGS 2 (Very Steep Pavilion with Tall Crown) or (Steep Pavilion with Very Tall Crown)
5 GIA EX - AGS 3 (Very Steep pavilion combined with Very Tall Crown)

The overlap and agreement between the GIA EX and AGS 0 is pretty good for most of the highest grades. The exception is AGS penalizes some combinations due to loss of brightness and leakage under the table. Overall AGSL has more precise tiers which differentiate more at the highest level of performance.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

You bring up a great point ccl.
My statement was incorrect- there are indeed impartial graders who would not categorize this type of stone as extremely well cut- these are people who follow AGS guidelines- and may indeed include a lot of the pros on this board..

But I think that still comes down to taste- even among experts- of which there are many that don't concur with AGSL in regards to cut grading.

buttt...why should this stone belong in the "well cut category" when it is carrying the extra fats? ...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

You bring up a great point ccl.
My statement was incorrect- there are indeed impartial graders who would not categorize this type of stone as extremely well cut- these are people who follow AGS guidelines- and may indeed include a lot of the pros on this board..

But I think that still comes down to taste- even among experts- of which there are many that don't concur with AGSL in regards to cut grading.

buttt...why should this stone belong in the "well cut category" when it is carrying the extra fats? ...

It is very well spread DF

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

You bring up a great point ccl.
My statement was incorrect- there are indeed impartial graders who would not categorize this type of stone as extremely well cut- these are people who follow AGS guidelines- and may indeed include a lot of the pros on this board..

But I think that still comes down to taste- even among experts- of which there are many that don't concur with AGSL in regards to cut grading.

buttt...why should this stone belong in the "well cut category" when it is carrying the extra fats? ...

It is very well spread DF

so are my fats...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

df- there's no visual evidence that this stone has extra fat whatsoever......leading me to say that due to physical evidence, this stone was not carrying any extra weight.
As I've noted, if one subscribes to AGS guidelines, than they would downgrade this stone.
However I feel this is a perfect example of why many prefer GIA's cut grading system.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

df- there's no visual evidence that this stone has extra fat whatsoever......leading me to say that due to physical evidence, this stone was not carrying any extra weight.

Define extra fat, and see the blue/red wireframe diagram I posted above.

As I've noted, if one subscribes to AGS guidelines, than they would downgrade this stone.

Garry attached the AGS Gold charts, that is not a popular system anymore for fine make rounds and is only proportion based. The system related to ray tracing and ASET is the AGS-PGS I linked to above.

However I feel this is a perfect example of why many prefer GIA's cut grading system.

No RD the base proportions could possible hit AGS 0 see the chart.
This particular one likely would not based on the ASET which shows leakage and lack of contrast regions.

Cutters prefer GIA as they can retain more weight and still get the top grade. It gives them a larger safer zone to shoot for and more options for saving weight.

Dealers and retailors prefer GIA as it presents an opportunity for better margins in some cases. They don't need to know anything about the foundations of the system and can just trust it and tell their consumers to do the same, very simple to sell.

But really why do you even accept GIA's system? I understand your taste for long LGF (80% - 85%), disordered and assymetric with a large table, brightness with minimial contrast and smaller flashes.

You can get this appearance with a GIA Good/ Gia Very Good/ GIA Excellent/ AGS 0-6.
Why do you support the GIA cut grade of Excellent at all? It has almost no correlation to the descriptions of appearance or the photographs you have shown. You could pick up the appearance you like in a GIA Very Good or Good and save a bundle.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

I like GIA's cut grade for exactly the reasons John illiterates - it is a huge step forward in terms of a widely acceptable method for grading cut.
As I've noted on many occasions, the grade is a plateau- and the drop off is so very gradual that in many cases people may prefer a stone graded VG over one graded EX based on the appearance.
I certainly consider VG cut grade stones for personal use, or to show a client interested.

IN terms of the aset- this again is a great stone to use as an example of how aset interpretation sometimes leads to mistaken impressions.
That is to say- the visuals of the stone are great- and the aset does indeed give us a clue as to what the stone looks like in person- however many interpretations of aset are based on false impressions.
The stone had no problems whatsoever with leakage- and the contrast and brightness were remarkable- although different from the more patterned stones that produce a more "organized" aset image.


IN terms of cutters motivations: I respectfully suggest that is a subject unto itself- and that making broad based assumptions may lead to incorrect conclusions.

Definition of "Extra Fat"- to me, a stone that is either cut too deep- or one with pavilion bulge- or other factors that manifest themselves in a smaller appearance.
None of which applies to the diamond we're discussing.
The fact that this stone could have been cut to 3.90+-cts is really irrelevant- the results speak for themselves.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

Definition of "Extra Fat"- to me, a stone that is either cut too deep- or one with pavilion bulge- or other factors that manifest themselves in a smaller appearance.
None of which applies to the diamond we're discussing.
The fact that this stone [i]could [/i] have been cut to 3.90+-cts is really irrelevant- the results speak for themselves.

irrelevant?? the consumer had to pay for the extra weight,for the stone of this size i'm sure that would be somewhere in the $8-10K range??

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

Definition of "Extra Fat"- to me, a stone that is either cut too deep- or one with pavilion bulge- or other factors that manifest themselves in a smaller appearance.
None of which applies to the diamond we're discussing.
The fact that this stone [i]could [/i] have been cut to 3.90+-cts is really irrelevant- the results speak for themselves.

irrelevant?? the consumer had to pay for the extra weight,for the stone of this size i'm sure that would be somewhere in the $8-10K range??

Of course $10,000 is not irrelevant, but there's a larger spread than that just between vendor to vendor, stone to stone.
You're also assuming that if the stone was cut to the smaller possibility John suggested that the price would be less- and that's by no means assured.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

I like GIA's cut grade for exactly the reasons John illiterates - it is a huge step forward in terms of a widely acceptable method for grading cut.
As I've noted on many occasions, the grade is a plateau- and the drop off is so very gradual that in many cases people may prefer a stone graded VG over one graded EX based on the appearance.

Thats far too general and I don't know what CA/PA combinations you are referring to. It is a much broader plateau than AGSL and you can see it with the chart above.

IN terms of the aset- this again is a great stone to use as an example of how aset interpretation sometimes leads to mistaken impressions.

No mistaken impressions RD in this thread. AGS is a higher plateau for Ligh performance(LP).
You may not agree that this stricter standard of LP is necessary or a valid differentiator for beauty, and well that is fine. Good enough for you and Diagem in LP may not be good enough for others.

However ignoring what the foundations of the AGS system are about and the incorrectly interpreting the light performance as seen by ASET or graded by AGS is misleading to consumers and takes us farther away from common ground.

Perhaps the subjective interpretation that penalizes AGS1 - 3 not being beautiful enough is the problem, not the objective LP grading that differentiates bewtween AGS0 and those grades.

I you were to give your opinion that AGS grades 0 - 3 were the same plateau and were equally beautiful in your opinion than the two labs at the high end would be practically the same.

That is to say- the visuals of the stone are great- and the aset does indeed give us a clue as to what the stone looks like in person- however many interpretations of aset are based on false impressions.

RD all of those observations are once again your subjective opinion and standards. It is okay for you to like that stone but it doesn't present a consistant frame of reference for comparison on which consumers can draw meaningful conclusions on other stones with similar proportions. I don't know what is sufficient leakage for you or your standards as they are not clearly defined.
Definition of "Extra Fat"- to me, a stone that is either cut too deep- or one with pavilion bulge- or other factors that manifest themselves in a smaller appearance.

Once again not precisely defined terms and I don't know your cutoffs.
What is your limit for cut too deep?, define pavilion bulge in a round?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

Definition of "Extra Fat"- to me, a stone that is either cut too deep- or one with pavilion bulge- or other factors that manifest themselves in a smaller appearance.
None of which applies to the diamond we're discussing.
The fact that this stone [i]could [/i] have been cut to 3.90+-cts is really irrelevant- the results speak for themselves.

irrelevant?? the consumer had to pay for the extra weight,for the stone of this size i'm sure that would be somewhere in the $8-10K range??

Of course $10,000 is not irrelevant, but there's a larger spread than that just between vendor to vendor, stone to stone.
You're also assuming that if the stone was cut to the smaller possibility John suggested that the price would be less- and that's by no means assured.

A 3.9 AGS 0 is going to sell for the same price as a 4.36 GIA Ex.
Possible but unlikely. Which one would be easier to sell at the same price?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

I don't think we can find an AGS0 3.90ct stone to allow a comparison- if such a stone is on the market, I'd be interested how the price compares.

As far as your other points ccl- let's just agree to disagree.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

I don't think we can find an AGS0 3.90ct stone to allow a comparison- if such a stone is on the market, I'd be interested how the price compares.

As far as your other points ccl- let's just agree to disagree.

Yes we agree to disagree, you don't want to define your terms, so debating with you won't get anywhere.
One thing is more certain you had no hope in hell of selling that diamond for the ~200k in your listing.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

I don't think we can find an AGS0 3.90ct stone to allow a comparison- if such a stone is on the market, I'd be interested how the price compares.

As far as your other points ccl- let's just agree to disagree.

Yes we agree to disagree, you don't want to define your terms, so debating with you won't get anywhere.
One thing is more certain you had no hope in hell of selling that diamond for the ~200k in your listing.

was that the asking price??

 

[diagem]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

IN terms of the aset- this again is a great stone to use as an example of how aset interpretation sometimes leads to mistaken impressions.

No mistaken impressions RD in this thread. AGS is a higher plateau for Ligh performance(LP).
You may not agree that this stricter standard of LP is necessary or a valid differentiator for beauty, and well that is fine. Good enough for you and Diagem in LP may not be good enough for others.

Not nice CCL,

If you already mix my words in your discussions please show the related context:



From page 1:

"ChunkyCushionLover wrote:

The proportions and Med Blue Fluorescence suggest to me it should be discounted over shallower pavilion GIA XXX without the fluoro.

If this stone wasn't discounted to the consumer someone along the supply chain had an opportunity for a better margin and maintains an interest in keeping all GIA 3Xs as equal value."




"DiaGem wrote:

CCL..., this is a general statement.

It might have not been displayed for sale by some PS vendors due to the numbers, but stating a fact that this stone would/should have been discounted is simply to general.

Its still graded triple Ex (good enough for the majority) which is safe for the majority (including me) and the medium fluo. would probably not affect the appearance in a negative way.
Not all fluo stones are discounted..., and (IMO) if they are discounted, they are probably an added value that consumers doesnt pay for.

Yes..., even strong & very strong blue...."



I never said it was good enough for me as far as light performance..., light performance was not even mentioned.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

IN terms of the aset- this again is a great stone to use as an example of how aset interpretation sometimes leads to mistaken impressions.

Not nice CCL,

If you already mix my words in your discussions please show the related context:



From page 1:

"ChunkyCushionLover wrote:

The proportions and Med Blue Fluorescence suggest to me it should be discounted over shallower pavilion GIA XXX without the fluoro.

If this stone wasn't discounted to the consumer someone along the supply chain had an opportunity for a better margin and maintains an interest in keeping all GIA 3Xs as equal value."




"DiaGem wrote:

CCL..., this is a general statement.

It might have not been displayed for sale by some PS vendors due to the numbers, but stating a fact that this stone would/should have been discounted is simply to general.

Its still graded triple Ex (good enough for the majority) which is safe for the majority (including me) and the medium fluo. would probably not affect the appearance in a negative way.
Not all fluo stones are discounted..., and (IMO) if they are discounted, they are probably an added value that consumers doesnt pay for.

Yes..., even strong & very strong blue...."

I never said it was good enough for me as far as light performance..., light performance was not even mentioned.

You are right, I may have interpreted it wrong I apologize. Your statement is general and thus should not have been mixed with RDs opinion(s).

Please clarify, what does safe for the majority (including me) mean specifically as it relates to a GIA EX with (Cr32Pavilion41.8 ) as compared with more shallow angled near tolk rounds?

 

[diagem]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

IN terms of the aset- this again is a great stone to use as an example of how aset interpretation sometimes leads to mistaken impressions.

Not nice CCL,

If you already mix my words in your discussions please show the related context:



From page 1:

"ChunkyCushionLover wrote:

The proportions and Med Blue Fluorescence suggest to me it should be discounted over shallower pavilion GIA XXX without the fluoro.

If this stone wasn't discounted to the consumer someone along the supply chain had an opportunity for a better margin and maintains an interest in keeping all GIA 3Xs as equal value."




"DiaGem wrote:

CCL..., this is a general statement.

It might have not been displayed for sale by some PS vendors due to the numbers, but stating a fact that this stone would/should have been discounted is simply to general.

Its still graded triple Ex (good enough for the majority) which is safe for the majority (including me) and the medium fluo. would probably not affect the appearance in a negative way.
Not all fluo stones are discounted..., and (IMO) if they are discounted, they are probably an added value that consumers doesnt pay for.

Yes..., even strong & very strong blue...."

I never said it was good enough for me as far as light performance..., light performance was not even mentioned.

You are right, I may have interpreted it wrong I apologize. Your statement is general and thus should not have been mixed with RDs opinion(s).

Please clarify, what does safe for the majority (including me) mean specifically as it relates to a GIA EX with (Cr32Pavilion41.8 ) as compared with more shallow angled near tolk rounds?

...specifically as it relates to GIA (3x) EX (period).

I honestly feel that for consumers around the planet GIA triple Ex Diamonds are evidence of fine Craftsmanship & Cut.
Are there better more precise cuts within the triple EX range? Sure, but not significant enough to worry any of the consumers who are looking for safe purchases in which I believe are the majority.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

...specifically as it relates to GIA (3x) EX (period).

I honestly feel that for consumers around the planet GIA triple Ex Diamonds are evidence of fine Craftsmanship & Cut.
Are there better more precise cuts within the triple EX range? Sure, but not significant enough to worry any of the consumers who are looking for safe purchases in which I believe are the majority.

I very strongly disagree with that statement.
There are enough differences out there between a random giaX and a PS approved super-ideal to make them worth seeking out.
Safe enough is not a destination PS is about.
What is important down the road at the next stop has no bearing on what PS is about.
Never has and never should.
One of the things that is wrong in the diamond world is that the mainstream diamond world has gone a little pricescope and pricescope hasn't moved far enough forward.

What PS is about is not what someones daddy did in the diamond business it is about what we do...
It is about a diamond cutter who got curious about what a consumer was doing and decided to cut the diamond the consumer was working on.
That was no accident, we are both pricescope people and pricescope people dance to a different drummer.

I am preaching get back to the diamond heart and soul and sing the songs again! Amen!

 

[diagem]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

...specifically as it relates to GIA (3x) EX (period).

I honestly feel that for consumers around the planet GIA triple Ex Diamonds are evidence of fine Craftsmanship & Cut.
Are there better more precise cuts within the triple EX range? Sure, but not significant enough to worry any of the consumers who are looking for safe purchases in which I believe are the majority.

I very strongly disagree with that statement.
There are enough differences out there between a random giaX and a PS approved super-ideal to make them worth seeking out.
Safe enough is not a destination PS is about.
What is important down the road at the next stop has no bearing on what PS is about.
Never has and never should.
One of the things that is wrong in the diamond world is that the mainstream diamond world has gone a little pricescope and pricescope hasn't moved far enough forward.

What PS is about is not what someones daddy did in the diamond business it is about what we do...
It is about a diamond cutter who got curious about what a consumer was doing and decided to cut the diamond the consumer was working on.
That was no accident, we are both pricescope people and pricescope people dance to a different drummer.

I am preaching get back to the diamond heart and soul and sing the songs again! Amen!

I understand you sentiments and am for further exploring as you well know.
Whomever comes to PS to learn and reach for the sky is welcomed and as you said can find "the worth seeking out" ones.
But we cant ignore the majority (and I believe also the majority here on PS), a lot of potential consumers park on PS grounds to simply assure themselves a great purchase and GIA graded triple Ex Diamonds are indeed a secured purchase!

The potential that lies ahead is just waiting to be discovered

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

Sadly, Yoram, you are right.
Karl how could WE better help poeole find the cream?

 

[diagem]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

Sadly, Yoram, you are right.
Karl how could WE better help poeole find the cream?

Not Karl but will try:

You are helping them..., perhaps not too many want (or know) about the cream

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

Sadly, Yoram, you are right.
Karl how could WE better help poeole find the cream?

Not Karl but will try:

You are helping them..., perhaps not too many want (or know) about the cream

Well to begin with we have to point out their is a higher average supply cost (less yield and greater cutting time) to produce the cream.
Beauty is very subjective and sparks all sorts of debate here, but their should be consensus the cream in terms of LP is more expensive to produce.

To uneducated consumers the price differences jump out and without some education maybe nothing else will be obvious. Some trade are quick to point out "Brand Premium" is the reason for the price difference and they ignore or downplay the appearance differences. Well it doesn't have to be brand premium it could be yield premium.

We need to educate consumers on this, it is unfortunately the job of those selling or educating the consumer about the cream that have to explain and justify the price premium.

Not an easy task when so many trade who don't sell the cream claim all diamonds of a certain lower standard than the cream are equal to it.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Re: How important are HCA factor grades in assessing diamond

Sadly, Yoram, you are right.
Karl how could WE better help poeole find the cream?

Saturate the market.