Can someone give me some "expert" feedback?

[GEMGAL123]

Ok, I posted before about my diamond because I thought the size looked smaller than a "fancy" shape, even though my carat weight is the same. I know that there is a difference because of shape. Just curious if these are considered the most optimal measurements/info:
total depth 63%
total width 60%
crown height 14%
pavillion depth: 43%
griddle thickness thick faceted
measurements are 7.20 - 7.16 X 4.52 mm
forgot to add: the carat weight is 1.51
round brilliant

Can someone give me their thoughts as to whether these stats affect the "size" of my stone?
Thanks!!!

 

[Magnum]

What type of fancy stone was it that you were comparing your stone to?

As far as your diamond, it scored a 2.2 on the HCA which suggests that it's a pretty good cut. It scores a Very Good for Light return, Fire, and Scintillation, but only Good for Spread, which is because of the 63% total depth, which makes sense. 63% is a little deep, which is why your stone may look a little bit smaller than an ideal cut 1.5 carat round stone. While a 63% depth is not optimal, it's not too far out of the ideal range, so I wouldn't be too worried about it, but it is the reason why your stone may appear a little smaller than an ideal cut stone with a smaller total depth.

 

[Lynn B]

Question regarding the HCA, please...

Is the LOWER the score the better (even under 2)? I understand that a 2 is better than a 4

but is a .5 better than a 1.5? Or at that point are we splitting hairs?

Thank you!

Lynn

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You could be - but it depends as much on you and your eyesight and stuff as it does on the diamond.

 

[GEMGAL123]

Thanks for the feedback! I wish I would have known this before - I always thought if a ring was cut deeper, it looked better because the space underneath the stone wouldn't be large - what do I know though.

Does anyone else have any input?
Thanks

 

[Magnum]

----------------
On 5/19/2004 6:42:56 AM Lynn B wrote:

Question regarding the HCA, please...

Is the LOWER the score the better (even under 2)? I understand that a 2 is better than a 4

but is a .5 better than a 1.5? Or at that point are we splitting hairs?

Thank you!

Lynn----------------

Splitting hairs.

"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."

This is straight from the comments underneath the reults of the HCA when you plug numbers in. It would probably be a good idea to read through the rest of the comments, as Mr. Holloway explains some of the other limitations of the HCA. By restricting you search to stones that score less than 2, you are significantly reducing the chances that you'll find a poor performing stone, any you'll be able to narrow down your choices to a few stones that would get further consideration. Once you find a few diamonds that score below 2, you'll need some other way to decide which is the better performer, like idealscope pictures, H&A pictures, Brilliancescope resuls, ISEE2 results, the eyes of a trusted independent appraier, or simply your own two eyes. Hope this helps.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 5/19/2004 1:31:08 PM GEMGAL123 wrote:



if a ring was cut deeper, it looked better because the space underneath the stone wouldn't be large - what do I know though.

----------------

This a design detail totally left to the maker of the setting - any stone can be set low on the finger or high, with or without some space underneath! There is no standard height for a ring, and this is a matter of preference... You definitely have the choice of having the rign made one way or another once you have the stone

 

[diamondsbylauren]

It looks like we have a situation here where GemGal can actuially SEE her diamond- so what her eyes tell her is the most important factor here.


GemGal- in general it could be said that 63% is on the deep side for a round brillaint cut diamond- Many people considering 60% to be the optimal depth.


For example- if your diamond was the same weight, yet only about 4.3mm deep ( instead of 4.52 deep) this would result in a stone with a larger diameter. Yours is approx 7.2mm- perhaps 60% depth stone would be about 7.35mm.


You would not notice this unless you actualy held your diamond next to a slightly larger diameter stone.




Now, regardless of the fact that your diamond is slightly deep, this does not mean it's not an AWESOME stone.




There are alot of folks who advocate the HCA here- while I feel that your eye is the most important judge- how does your diamond look to you?

 

[Lynn B]

----------------
On 5/19/2004 2:08:56 PM Magnum wrote:

----------------
On 5/19/2004 6:42:56 AM Lynn B wrote:

Question regarding the HCA, please...

Is the LOWER the score the better (even under 2)? I understand that a 2 is better than a 4

but is a .5 better than a 1.5? Or at that point are we splitting hairs?

Thank you!

Lynn----------------

Splitting hairs.

'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.'

This is straight from the comments underneath the reults of the HCA when you plug numbers in. It would probably be a good idea to read through the rest of the comments, as Mr. Holloway explains some of the other limitations of the HCA. By restricting you search to stones that score less than 2, you are significantly reducing the chances that you'll find a poor performing stone, any you'll be able to narrow down your choices to a few stones that would get further consideration. Once you find a few diamonds that score below 2, you'll need some other way to decide which is the better performer, like idealscope pictures, H&A pictures, Brilliancescope resuls, ISEE2 results, the eyes of a trusted independent appraier, or simply your own two eyes. Hope this helps.

----------------

Magnum,
Thank you for the additional info. I had read those comments under the HCA, but I didn't know what they meant exactly.

I feel like the more I am learning, the more there is to learn... I am beginning to wonder whether I will ever feel "qualified" or confident enough to make this purchase!

Lynn

 

[Magnum]

David,
i totally agree with everything you said about the HCA. It just sounded like GemGal was questioning her diamond, and i was trying to give her some reassurance that her eyes weren't lying to her, and that she had a good performing diamond. Sometimes it helps for people to have some quantifiable evidence (even if it isn't 100% accurate) than just having someone say "Your diamond looks good" with out saying why. My other response was to lynn, who asked a different question. And I'm always very careful to point out that the HCA should only be used as a sorting tool to help narrow down your choices when you're sorting through hundreds of diamonds on the internet. I always say the HCA is not a final determinant on cut and that the stones you picked should be further evaluated, with one of the important ways being either your own eyes or your appraiser's eyes.

 

[GEMGAL123]

Thanks to all who responded. David - that makes a lot of sense. My ring looks amazing to me, I truly love it. There was no problem there. I think it just floored me that it could look so small next to an exact match in carat weight, but differently shaped stone. I know that the longer ones look larger (this was an emerald shape) but I couldn't believe the difference. So what you're saying is that even if my depth was only 60% instead of 63%, I would barely notice a difference in the "size"/diameter of the stone, or would you say it would be noticeably larger looking? Just to the naked eye I mean. Thanks again!! You guys are great.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

I'm saying that the visual difference between your 63% depth and a 60% depth would likely be invisible without comparison.




If you were to compare to a long Emerald Cut ( which you have) this difference ( 63-60%) would not make the RBC look larger in relation to the EC- it's all in the way a diamond holds it's weight.




For example- I am the exact correct weight- to the ounce.


The problem is I'm abour 3 feet too short......heheh

 

[GEMGAL123]

Thanks

Just curious - what is the difference in looks between a princess and a round brilliant, same exact carat weight? Do they look basically the same, or does the princess look a bit larger also because of the cut?
Thanks everyone.