can a 3.1 HCA look more ''sparkly'' than a 1.0?

[guliice]

i''m using a local jeweler to buy my setting, and they offered to bring in a couple of diamonds for me to look at. i had already bought one from blue nile to take a look at and took that one up to compare.

unfortunately it was just before closing so i didn''t have enough time to use my ideal scope, but just from looking, the two other diamonds (theirs) looked more brilliant/fiery/etc than the one i brought in. i ran their numbers and both had an HCA of 3.1, while mine has a score of 1.0...

does that sound possible? or are my eyes deceiving me? and i know, it''s all subjective...

here are the specs on all three:


#1 - Mine (BN) 0.64ct:
depth: 61.9
table: 55
crown: 34
pavilion: 40.8
color: G
clarity: SI1


#2 - theirs 0.63ct
depth: 61.0
table: 58
crown: 34
pavilion: 41.2
color: H
clarity: SI1


#3 - theirs 0.59ct
depth: 63.1
table: 56
crown: 35
pavilion: 41.2
color: G
clarity: SI2


i''m already going to send my diamond back... when i got it in and ISed it, seems like it was very light in general, instead of that nice deep red/pink in the ''ideal'' images... in the body of the diamond - and also at the edges.

but this was really odd to me, that the other two seemed more brilliant - particularly #2. this was in typical store low lighting conditions.

any ideas why, or similar experiences?

thanks!

 

[neatfreak]

It''s possible that in that specific lighting condition they all looked similar. But in all kinds of lighting conditions more than likely the 1.0 on the HCA will look better.

But really, you should buy what you love. Just make absolute sure to look at them under lights that are NOT in a jewelry store before purchase!

 

[Pieface]

Both of the store stones look to have pavilion angles which the HCA gives a hit to (over 41deg)which not all experts agree with. So some experts may think those stones are better performers than HCA indicates. There are also the other issues that the HCA can''t judge - polish, optical symmetry, lighting etc which can have a big impact on performance.

I guess the short answer is...potentially...sure a 3.1 could look nicer particularly when you throw in personal preference.

Hopefully someone with a bit more knowledge can chime in to help.




I agree with Neatfreak though. If the other factors are equal the HCA 1 should perform better across a broad range of lighting.

 

[jstarfireb]

Jewelry store lighting tends to make poorly cut stones look as good or better than well cut ones. Next time see if you can take their stones out by the window/door and look at them in more natural light, and you might see that your stone outperforms them.

 

[Adylon]

It''s also possible their diamonds were more "freshly cleaned" then yours. Did you handle your diamond a lot before taking it there to compare? Did they offer to clean your diamond? Even if you didn''t touch it from the day you got it, it''s possible it was just a little dirty when it was shipped.

 

[JogiaDiamonds]

i''m already going to send my diamond back... when i got it in and ISed it, seems like it was very light in general, instead of that nice deep red/pink in the ''ideal'' images... in the body of the diamond - and also at the edges.

Did you compare it to the calibration CZ (link) that is sold with the IS? From experience, it''s really important to use the calibration CZ if you haven''t used the IS before or have just looked at pictures on a computer screen.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/8/2008 11:35:34 PM
Author: Yosef
It''s also possible their diamonds were more ''freshly cleaned'' then yours. Did you handle your diamond a lot before taking it there to compare? Did they offer to clean your diamond? Even if you didn''t touch it from the day you got it, it''s possible it was just a little dirty when it was shipped.

I agree, and also were the stones loose and held in tweezers so light can get in the pavilion?
Compare them sitting in the gap between your fingers so no light can enter the pavilion - more like how they will appear when set.

 

[guliice]

thanks everyone so much... great stuff here...

i''m going back saturday to take more time - i will definitely take it over to the window for some natural light - and yes yosef, i''ve handled my stone a lot and haven''t cleaned it.

will do it saturday.

and i could kick myself now that i didn''t buy the calibration cz, was actually thinking of that this morning. i may call the place here in the us where i ordered it and see if they can send one - but without the $11 shipping charge...

i think that will really make a difference, being able to see/work with the calibration stone.

garry, the stones were on a display tray w/ black velvet so no light should have gotten in the pavillion, but on saturday i''ll try them on my hand also. that always seems to make them look really great.

again, many thanks to all...

 

[Ellen]

Also, after comparing in natural light, cup your hand over them, so the light can''t get to them. See which one looks best/still a bit lively.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 7/8/2008 11:35:34 PM
Author: Yosef
It''s also possible their diamonds were more ''freshly cleaned'' then yours. Did you handle your diamond a lot before taking it there to compare? Did they offer to clean your diamond? Even if you didn''t touch it from the day you got it, it''s possible it was just a little dirty when it was shipped.

THis is a great point...a dirty diamond will never look as sparkly as a clean one. Make sure yours are freshly cleaned, many of us use Windex in a pinch! But don''t put fingerprints on it if you can avoid it.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/9/2008 8:30:32 AM
Author: neatfreak


THis is a great point...a dirty diamond will never look as sparkly as a clean one. Make sure yours are freshly cleaned, many of us use Windex in a pinch! But don''t put fingerprints on it if you can avoid it.

And please close the drain before cleaning!

 

[dockman3]

I had a very similar experience in which a stone that scored 2.7 on the HCA looked better, IMO, than three different AGS000 stones that I''m sure all scored lower than 2. I was looking at and selecting them under fluorescent lighting and not in the main lighting environment of the jewelery store. I''ve heard that fluorescent lighting is one of the worst for diamonds. But low and behold, to my eyes I liked the 2.7 better than the AGS000 and my pav angle is 41.2. In fact, my stone was 0.82ct, D, SI2, depth 61.1, table 60, crown 33 and pav 41.2. I''d say that''s a pretty similar stone to number 2 of yours and that''s the one I liked the best and the one I ended up buying. Really, just let your eyes do the work and don''t buy a piece of paper. Buy a diamond.

I should also note that the setting I chose is very open and light can get in the pavilion, so I didn''t put them on my fingers or anything and just used tweezers. This may change things, so I would definitely do that.