Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Give me your honest opinion on this diamond....

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Why the H#&& would they let a 5th grader cut a 5+ ct stone?
38.gif
39.gif
14.gif
32.gif
15.gif
7.gif
8.gif
 
Honest opinon?



14.gif





Sure is big, though!
 
Well for me and that money I would rather have an super ideal. Going a little smaller to go up in cut quality would not make much difference to the visual appearancew. Either way it will look huge, but one will look meh and huge and the other
30.gif
and huge.
 
It''s... uh. Well, it''s not that bad.

It kind of has arrow-shaped patterns?

I''ve certainly seen worse?

And it has good clarity!

Okay, that''s it for nice things I can find to say.
3.gif


I''m going to assume that someone traded it in for a better-cut stone and Jon''s keeping it around in case a client comes along who just wants something ginormous with kinda arrow-shaped patterns and good clarity. Because it certainly is ginormous.

If it were my stone, I''d probably get it recut if it would be possible to bring the stone up to super-ideal without going under the magic 5-carat mark (which I can only assume is pretty darn magic once you get to that level). But it could be that the loss in size would outweigh the increased value of making it shinier. Maybe really big stones are worth more when they''re really big.
 
I just put the numbers in the HCA. I don''t know much about analyzing cut angles and proportions beyond using that thing and looking at charts to see where it fits in.

Can someone explain to me how it scored an 0.8 on the HCA but its considered a not-so-great stone? I can see in the images and ASET and whatnot that it leaves something to be desired. But otherwise I am totally left scratching my head on the dissonance between the HCA score and reaction from the crowd.
 
Date: 12/14/2009 3:19:54 PM
Author: Clairitek
I just put the numbers in the HCA. I don''t know much about analyzing cut angles and proportions beyond using that thing and looking at charts to see where it fits in.

Can someone explain to me how it scored an 0.8 on the HCA but its considered a not-so-great stone? I can see in the images and ASET and whatnot that it leaves something to be desired. But otherwise I am totally left scratching my head on the dissonance between the HCA score and reaction from the crowd.
Click to expand...
I plugged the numbers in too Clairitek and I''m confused as well. I guess HCA is to help decide if a diamond is worthy of further consideration, and the images and ASET are the additional info that''s needed to decide?
40.gif
 
Date: 12/14/2009 3:26:14 PM
Author: junebug17
Date: 12/14/2009 3:19:54 PM

Author: Clairitek

I just put the numbers in the HCA. I don''t know much about analyzing cut angles and proportions beyond using that thing and looking at charts to see where it fits in.

Can someone explain to me how it scored an 0.8 on the HCA but its considered a not-so-great stone? I can see in the images and ASET and whatnot that it leaves something to be desired. But otherwise I am totally left scratching my head on the dissonance between the HCA score and reaction from the crowd.
Click to expand...
I plugged the numbers in too Clairitek and I''m confused as well. I guess HCA is to help decide if a diamond is worthy of further consideration, and the images and ASET are the additional info that''s needed to decide?
40.gif
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Lesson learned! I too am looking for a stone right now (not this big though!) and now I will be definitely asking for those images before purchase.
 
.8 is not necessarily good. Diamonds that score below 1 on the HCA need to be checked for obstruction. 1-2 is usually the range most people like. The crown and pavilion angles are not the best together. Too shallow of a pavilion.
 
Lorelei or Stone-cold can probably give a better explanation, but I guess the easiest way I''d try to explain it is to say: look at the DiamXray and how much white and pink it shows, especially around the edges of the stone and the middle. Then compare that to how much red you see on any of the GOG Signature stones (it doesn''t even really matter which one -- August Vintage, Octavia, H&A Round, any of them). The Signature stones all have phenomenal light return, that''s why they''re so red. This stone is leakier than a hunk of Swiss cheese blasted by a shotgun.
 
Date: 12/14/2009 3:41:47 PM
Author: Laila619
.8 is not necessarily good. Diamonds that score below 1 on the HCA need to be checked for obstruction. 1-2 is usually the range most people like. The crown and pavilion angles are not the best together. Too shallow of a pavilion.
Click to expand...

Ah! I piece of the puzzle I was not aware of. This makes loads of sense as well. Thanks Laila (and Liane) for the explanation.
 
HCA assumes perfect symmetry.
Without perfect symmetry, it is very easy for the angles to vary a lot around the stone and therefore the facets become distorted out of perfect alignment, even if the average angle seems perfect.

The worst of the visual effects on that stone are caused by lack of symmetry.
 
Date: 12/14/2009 3:19:54 PM
Author: Clairitek
I just put the numbers in the HCA. I don't know much about analyzing cut angles and proportions beyond using that thing and looking at charts to see where it fits in.

Can someone explain to me how it scored an 0.8 on the HCA but its considered a not-so-great stone? I can see in the images and ASET and whatnot that it leaves something to be desired. But otherwise I am totally left scratching my head on the dissonance between the HCA score and reaction from the crowd.
Click to expand...
You pretty much have all the pieces from the various posts. So, just to coalate all of it:

-HCA is used to weed out probable poor performers so time isn't wasted examining information on poorly cut stones.
-As FB mentions, HCA assumes perfect symmetry--definitely not the case here
-HCA is trumped by actual IS images--there are a percentage of diamonds that score well on HCA that just don't have top notch performance--usually due to excessive angle variation.

The angles on this diamond are not bad, and the IS/DiamXRay actually shows decent light return in the center and doesn't really show obstruction issues, which can be the case with shallower pavillions. The main problem I see is possible lack of light return around the outer edge, which means the diamond could appear smaller than its actual size. The other issue is that the symmetry being off in several areas is causing wonky patterning--which is magnified by the sheer size of the diamond.

I would be interested to hear what Jon thinks of its appearance IRL. Obviously not enough to back it with a Lifetime policy, but I do kind of wonder what its overall appearance is like.
 
Ditto FB. But overall the stone is not bad, ASET/IS probably looks worse than it is due to the large size of the stone and the setup is not design for that stone. Check the Gem adviser and use the ASET/IS lighting to see what I mean.
 
Thanks again for the explanation on the HCA. I haven''t done enough homework to fully understand how it works. Didn''t know what sort of assumptions it made about aspects of the cut quality that don''t come through in those numbers you put in there.

I am curious what Jon thinks of the stone as well.
 
Well, I kind of get the idea that most think it is not worth the money. Not a terrible stone but should be able to get something nicer for the price...:-)

Perhaps some of our members can post some "around 5 cwt" stones, round and radiant that are within that price range (or lower) that are a good bargain. I am open to suggestions and being a new member, I am not sure of where to look at this particular time.

Thanks.

 
Can someone illuminate me with a little further info on HCA scores? Could my eyes (almost 34 years old and not quite 20/20) see the difference between 2 AGS ideals displaying H&A with respective HCA scores of 2.4 (scoring "buy if the price is right") and 1.8 (scoring "oooooh"). I'm trying to get a feel for it.
 
Date: 12/14/2009 7:09:56 PM
Author: pretty_carbon
Can someone illuminate me with a little further info on HCA scores? Could my eyes (almost 34 years old and not quite 20/20) see the difference between 2 AGS ideals displaying H&A with respective HCA scores of 2.4 (scoring ''buy if the price is right'') and 1.8 (scoring ''oooooh''). I''m trying to get a feel for it.
Click to expand...
Maybe.

I think that whether you could see it or not would depend on just what caused the HCA scores to be different, and the lighting conditions that you used to compare the stones.

With H&A symmetry, stones with scores between 2-3 may well be a match for non-H&A stones with scores between 1-2.
 
Date: 12/14/2009 7:09:56 PM
Author: pretty_carbon
Can someone illuminate me with a little further info on HCA scores? Could my eyes (almost 34 years old and not quite 20/20) see the difference between 2 AGS ideals displaying H&A with respective HCA scores of 2.4 (scoring ''buy if the price is right'') and 1.8 (scoring ''oooooh''). I''m trying to get a feel for it.
Click to expand...
HCA is making a prediction based on the averages of only 16 facets. Now an H&A will have nearly perfect symmetry, but the effect of the "minor" facets and the reasons for the score (CA, PA, table, combination of factors) may determine how visible the difference is.

HCA is an elimination tool only and is used to help quickly weed narrow down a search to the stones that have a high probability of being an outstanding performer. That''s it. It doesn''t grade diamonds or tell you what you will like. You can have a 60/60 make, a Tolkowsky and a FIC that all have identical HCA scores and you would definitely be able to tell them apart.
 
What are HCA scores and why are they so important?

I thought we were going to look at the different grading scores and make a decent decision based upon those numbers?

I am completely confused.

What are the factors that make the determination of the stated diamond in the first post a bad choice? And what should I look for in other diamonds, if I can''t tell the big differences in the one I posted?

Sorry for all the questions, but I have read and read and find myself in a fog.

Thanks for the help.
 
Date: 12/15/2009 8:07:12 AM
Author: dssxxxx
What are HCA scores and why are they so important?


I thought we were going to look at the different grading scores and make a decent decision based upon those numbers?


I am completely confused.


What are the factors that make the determination of the stated diamond in the first post a bad choice? And what should I look for in other diamonds, if I can't tell the big differences in the one I posted?


Sorry for all the questions, but I have read and read and find myself in a fog.


Thanks for the help.
Click to expand...

1) HCA = Holloway Cut Adviser. Looks at a few parameters to get a general idea of how a diamond *could* perform to narrow your search, and you go from there.

2) The grading 'scores' as in numbers only tell so much. Images trump all. I'm attaching the DiamXray pic someone else mentioned. It is somewhat similar to an IdealScope image, which you can learn more about how to read here. Don't worry about asking questions! It's what we're here for
1.gif


Now as for that DiamXray image... see how the ~1mm from the outside edge, all the way around the diamond, is mostly clear? See how some clear (white) spots poke through in the table? That's all leakage, and in the case of the outside edge leakage, will make it look like that whole 1mm of diamond doesn't exist. I mean, you'll see it, but it won't be reflecting light like it should, making the diamond look smaller than it actually is.... but for that price, it darn well better be reflecting light *everywhere*.

Also of note... I don't thing GOG has it in-house, so I don't know if Rhino will be able to comment on it. I don't think it's even worth trying to pull it in, though...

ETA: eeeek didn't realize how bad the arrows "pattern" was till i just took another look. uuuhmmm... +1 outatouch, you said it best.

5ctdiamx_234987.jpg
 
Date: 12/15/2009 9:05:45 AM
Author: tonyc2387

Now as for that DiamXray image... see how the ~1mm from the outside edge, all the way around the diamond, is mostly clear? See how some clear (white) spots poke through in the table? That's all leakage, and in the case of the outside edge leakage, will make it look like that whole 1mm of diamond doesn't exist. I mean, you'll see it, but it won't be reflecting light like it should, making the diamond look smaller than it actually is.... but for that price, it darn well better be reflecting light *everywhere*.

Also of note... I don't thing GOG has it in-house, so I don't know if Rhino will be able to comment on it. I don't think it's even worth trying to pull it in, though...
Click to expand...
A couple of points.

GOG does have the diamond in-house. It has full scans and information and shows up on the Search as an In-House diamond.

Reserve judgement on the outer edge of the IS/DiamXRay image. As Stone Cold mentioned, it is obvious from the image that the sheer size of the stone is pushing the equipment to the limit. That may account for the appearance of leakage around the edge and is why I mentioned in my first post that it would be good to get Jon's opinion from seeing it live. (He can't comment on his own stones per PS policy, so you would have to call or email him)

Overall, I don't think the stone is as bad as some are insinuating. GOG's reputation is such that if it was that horrible, they most likely wouldn't have it in-house. dssxxxx, if you are interested, just pick up the phone and call Jon and ask him what he thinks about the diamond--he will be honest with you.
 
Interesting... was going by the list of specs on the right, where under In House: it says "no". My bad if that's not the case.

Fair enough on the size beyond machine limits. That may be the case, but even the sarin is showing the same thing. That machine should be able to handle it, no? I think Liane said it well... yes, we've seen worse. But for that amount of $$, there's much better to be had...

eta: Maybe jon could comment regarding his thoughts on stone size pushing the limitations of his imaging techniques? I would think that he would have compensated for the stone before putting the images up...
 
Date: 12/15/2009 9:51:22 AM
Author: tonyc2387
Interesting... was going by the list of specs on the right, where under In House: it says 'no'. My bad if that's not the case.

Fair enough on the size beyond machine limits. That may be the case, but even the sarin is showing the same thing. That machine should be able to handle it, no? I think Liane said it well... yes, we've seen worse. But for that amount of $$, there's much better to be had...

eta: Maybe jon could comment regarding his thoughts on stone size pushing the limitations of his imaging techniques? I would think that he would have compensated for the stone before putting the images up...
Click to expand...
I was going by the PS search--didn't look at the full info on GOG's site--you are probably right.
33.gif


I emailed GOG and Jon with a link to this thread to see if he could comment about the imaging, since he can't comment on the stone in particular. At this point it is all speculation until someone who has actually handled the stone chimes in.
 
I wonder what the expert would say, Lorelei PLEASE join this tread!!!!
9.gif
 
Date: 12/16/2009 8:56:52 AM
Author: gaby06
I wonder what the expert would say, Lorelei PLEASE join this tread!!!!
9.gif
Click to expand...
LOL!!! Hi gaby!

It isn't a terrible cut but it could be better and it is EGL graded. For that money personally I would rather have a diamond which is GIA or AGS graded with a fine make cut to really bring out the beauty even if it is a bit smaller.
 
Sorry not able to comment sooner.

This diamond is a great example of you get what you pay for. As noted the angles are great and receives a great HCA score. What causes the hit in the optics is primarily the upper half angles and is the primary cause of it to go from a "0" to a "2" in light performance.

Sadly EGL does not publish upper half angles (most labs do not) while it is something we do measure in our lab and show via Helium Reports along with the resultant ASET, DiamXray and AGS PGS results.

If the diamond were published strictly with a report & a common photograph everyone would love it and the great HCA score would be icing on the cake.

We'd rather our clients be aware of all these facts before making such a large financial layout. If dsxxx would like my assistance I extend it to him of course.

Kind regards,
 
I emailed you and have had no response.

Thanks.
 
Date: 12/22/2009 10:38:22 AM
Author: dssxxxx
I emailed you and have had no response.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Why don''t you call him then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top