Can someone explain the differences between 0-1 & 1-2 HCA scores?

[sna77]

A score below 2 (Excellent) means you have eliminated known poor performers (more than 95% of all diamonds). Your own personal preference may be for a diamond with an HCA score of 1.5 more rather than one with a lower score of say 0.5. You also should consider other factors such as H&A pattern, symmetry, polish, etc.

0-2 is listed as excellent on the HCA scale, yet it appears that people prefer it to be in the 1-2 range... What does the difference in scores mean? What are the advantages of each?

Thanks! (Sorry for more stupid questions)...

 

[strmrdr]

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/ideal.asp

Basically a lot of stones that score under 1 have shallow pavilions.
Which means up close they can look too dark or if you wear dark clothing they can also appear too dark.
Mainly under the table.

A very high crown can counteract this which is what a FIC is.
Very high crown, shallow pavilion, fiery diamond.

 

[strmrdr]

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/tom-and-miriam-tashey-nancy-stacy-thom-underwood-et-al-videos.55055/

Check out the vid of Jon and John it talks about the clothing issue.

 

[sna77]

Date: 12/17/2006 2:35:21 PM
Author: strmrdr
http://diamonds.pricescope.com/ideal.asp

Basically a lot of stones that score under 1 have shallow pavilions.
Which means up close they can look too dark or if you wear dark clothing they can also appear too dark.
Mainly under the table.

A very high crown can counteract this which is what a FIC is.
Very high crown, shallow pavilion, fiery diamond.

Ahhh... This was a dumb q then... My previous post we were discussing shallow stones (I''ve been watching a bunch of videos on them)... I just didn''t make the connection between shallow stones and the lower HCA score.

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Regular Guy]

Not a dumb question, and not without some controversy. Many of these shallow stones will score 0 - 2, but still be outside the boxes seen here for AGS ideal or GIA excellent. So, you''re paying for at least another probably more than reasonable definition of ideal.

One way to analyze...if doing so, seek a discount. Otherwise, you might consider going for a venn diagram with more agreement.

 

[sna77]

Date: 12/17/2006 2:52:36 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Not a dumb question, and not without some controversy. Many of these shallow stones will score 0 - 2, but still be outside the boxes seen here for AGS ideal or GIA excellent. So, you''re paying for at least another probably more than reasonable definition of ideal.

One way to analyze...if doing so, seek a discount. Otherwise, you might consider going for a venn diagram with more agreement.

Thanks for the reply Ira...
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-me-compare-these-two-ags-stones.55046/

In my thread there, I''m looking at a stone you pointed out a while back, that falls just outside of AGS Ideal, that is a bit shallow (the Abazias one, which I sent the WF link, since the cert is actually readable there).

 

[Regular Guy]

I may have missed WF using the "GIA" text as a cue to look there for their cert; thanks.

Another interesting question. Based on the variance experts provide in the videos, you would be hard pressed to send both to an appraiser, in order to look for what you might then regard as a reliable understanding of which was was better.

Maybe it is a problem with information. While informative, now maybe Pricescope readers will be even more like a deer in headlights in making their picks.

 

[sna77]

Date: 12/17/2006 3:15:08 PM
Author: Regular Guy
I may have missed WF using the ''GIA'' text as a cue to look there for their cert; thanks.

Another interesting question. Based on the variance experts provide in the videos, you would be hard pressed to send both to an appraiser, in order to look for what you might then regard as a reliable understanding of which was was better.

Maybe it is a problem with information. While informative, now maybe Pricescope readers will be even more like a deer in headlights in making their picks.

The thing that struck me was how subjective those appraisers were... I figured they''d all come back and say just about the same thing... Seeing them have a difference of opinion was pretty interesting...

Oh, and I missed that on the WF site as well...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

shallow stones are not the only stones under 1.0
Tolkowsky proportions score under 1.0

And Shallow stones score as low as 6.0