New HCA update!

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Aren't most MRB pointed?

Most these days, yes. Pre 2000 AGS downgraded diamonds with pointed culets.
Today only 1.5% of GIA X-VG have a culet in 1.00 to 1.10ct on RapNet

 

[John P]

Re-reading my post- I never wrote that AGS Ideal cut stones don't break 6.3mm.

@Rockdiamond you may be thinking of something else? Let me be more specific.

Here is what you posted. I'm referencing the blue highlighted portions.

...and now carat stones rarely break 6.4mm. Sellers of "Ideal Cuts' will say such stones appear larger due to girdle to girdle brilliance.....and if we're comparing two 6.3mm stones, that may be true. But a well cut 60/60 spreading 6.5mm will appear larger than a super ideal of 6.3mm.

My interpretation -

1. You postulate a comparison of carat stones.
2. One would be a 60/60 spreading 6.5mm (these exist)
3. Another would be a "super ideal" spreading 6.3mm (see my question)

Result: The 60/60 will appear larger. Indeed. But that configuration (carat spreading only 6.3mm) cannot earn AGS Ideal. And no "super ideal" seller would stock such a lump.

My question: Can you link us to any "super ideal" spreading only 6.3mm that weighs a carat, for use in your proposed comparison?

If you can, I'll buy your table a couple of rounds in Vegas this June. Opportunity knocks.

 

[John P]

Thanks @Garry H (Cut Nut). Perfect example of how such examples will be harshly penalized if held to higher (Ideal/Super) standards.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi John,
All due respect, but you're attempting to put words into my mouth ( or post as it were).
There have been many discussions where the idea is promoted that a "Super Ideal" looks larger based on the cut. In some cases that may be true- but not all.
The new HCA feature allows a comparison of cut which takes spread into account. This will allow a more impartial comparison. That was my point.
I agree that there are no "Super Ideal" 1.00ct diamonds which spread 6.3mm.
You can still buy me a round- opportunity knocks back

 

[John P]

Hi John, All due respect, but you're attempting to put words into my mouth (or post as it were).

I only put them back where they came from.

I agree that there are no "Super Ideal" 1.00ct diamonds which spread 6.3mm.

Thanks. That's all I was asking.

You can still buy me a round - opportunity knocks back

Terms & conditions were explained above. But I'm a friendly guy. Catch me in a good mood.

 

[OoohShiny]

I wish some of you chaps would come over to the UK - would be great to talk shiny things face-to-face

 

[Rockdiamond]

I wish some of you chaps would come over to the UK - would be great to talk shiny things face-to-face

Cheerio!!!

 

[Rockdiamond]

But I'm a friendly guy.

This is true- and reading it again, you’re right that my post was ambiguous. Thanks for pointing it out.
Even if I don’t make it to Las Vegas this year I hope we might get together on your next venture to the big apple!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

@Rockdiamond you may be thinking of something else? Let me be more specific.

Here is what you posted. I'm referencing the blue highlighted portions.


My interpretation -

1. You postulate a comparison of carat stones.
2. One would be a 60/60 spreading 6.5mm (these exist)
3. Another would be a "super ideal" spreading 6.3mm (see my question)

Result: The 60/60 will appear larger. Indeed. But that configuration (carat spreading only 6.3mm) cannot earn AGS Ideal. And no "super ideal" seller would stock such a lump.

My question: Can you link us to any "super ideal" spreading only 6.3mm that weighs a carat, for use in your proposed comparison?

If you can, I'll buy your table a couple of rounds in Vegas this June. Opportunity knocks.

Hi Gentlemen,
1. I think it could be possible for a 60:60 to achieve AGS 0 - and it would likely be "Bigger" in Looks Like because it would have excelllent edge light return.
2. I am sure it would be possible to achieve supa dupa hearts and arrows ideal in 1.00ct 6.3mm. It would however have a thick girdle which has very little impact on light return and overall beauty. But it would have "Small" looks like.

 

[John P]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) of course. We know those things. That sidebar was a terminology tete-a-tete.

 

[OoohShiny]

I appreciate the banter from which us muggles learn

 

[psadmin]

Fwiw, here's my AGS# from post #2 - the 0.9 vs 1.0 HCA

104097975020

My AGS # is 104097609018

Sorry, it took me so long to respond. I got distracted.

Everything is just right. As Garry said it was an adjustment for symmetry that was added as that is now added to the calculations.

It was my first thought but wanted to double check our calculations.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I just did. When I used the AGS number I got a 0.9, but when I entered the numbers from the WF site myself I got the same 1.0 I got a year ago. I don't know if it's the program rounding the table to 56 from 55.9 or what. I don't think it's the rounding from 1.514 carats to 1.51. Doesn't matter, the ring is still beautiful.

A reminder - you will also get a lower HCA score if you enter that your stone shows H&A's. If you enter the cert alone it will not use H&A's as we can not trust vendors who put H&A's into their stone description forms. It must be in the eye of the beholder (opinion). So GIA or AGS stones can have H&A's.
https://www.pricescope.com/blog/looks-like-the-new-addition-to-hca

And just incase people reading page 2 do not know it - you can just click on the now colored HCA results and get a score and all the report details for every stone listed on Pricescope round diamond search. (except where sellers have not given the data which must include table, crown, pavilion, dimensions etc.)
so with one click you will get loads of info.
And another note - many vendors do not list their crappiest stones on PS because they know you guys will not buy them - so why pay PS to list them?

 

[Johnbt]

"A reminder - you will also get a lower HCA score if you enter that your stone shows H&A's."

I saw that when I was clicking various combinations over and over just to see what the software would do. I'm retired and still drink way too much coffee.

 

[WinkHPD]

And just incase people reading page 2 do not know it - you can just click on the now colored HCA results and get a score and all the report details for every stone listed on Pricescope round diamond search.

Garry,

I think that is an incredibly useful feature for people looking through the listings on Pricescope. Thank you for the update!

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry,

I think that is an incredibly useful feature for people looking through the listings on Pricescope. Thank you for the update!

Wink

Thanks Wink,
yes, Andrey's method to click on any stone and get every bit of detail about the stone from HCA to Looks Like size to all the info from the cert in one view is really smart.
People who have not realised it (and I can see from the stats that many of you have not 'got it') should properly study this simple one click method.