Got this 0.784 ES on hold - now a bit concerned about the HCA!

[stubee77]

So - I've got this ES stone on hold at WF, but there's a something that's confusing me a touch... Here's the specs:

Report: AGS
Shape: Round Ideal Cut
Carat: 0.784
Color: E
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 60.7
Table: 55
Crown Angle: 34.8
Crown %: 15.7
Pavilion Angle: 40.5
Pavilion %: 42.8
Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
$3561 (with Ps discount, of course!)

');" height=15 alt="Insert smilie

" src="http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/2.gif" width="15 border=0">

Using these figures it scores a 0.4 on the HCA, but received a grade of "Good" when the same figures were plugged into the GIA Facetware cut estimator tool.. I've read on these forums how some diamonds with a HCA of /www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif[/img]');" height="15" alt="Insert" smilie

" src="http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif" width="15"> And finally, if there proves to be no cause for concern with regards to the CA/Pa/Table/etc, would this be fair price for such a diamond???

Stu.

 

[Regular Guy]

Just some observations:

-I can validate Garry's anticipated concern about discrepencies between systems
-An update and improvement of my post here, where more clearly what will trump what could be helpful
-Until that, the new AGS0 may serve to trump most, but you don't have that (yours is the older AGS0).
-I'll bet it's a nice stone, but I'm not an expert.
-I do see WF has several very similar (in quality & price) options, and ACAs at that; not sure if they'd solve your issues.

Regards,

 

[strmrdr]

Not my favorite combo for a ring.
Would make an awesome pendant.
Garry (hca inventor) likes shallower pavillian stones that GIA and some other systems dont.
I have to go with my eyeballs and It is a problem with the diamonds iv seen that the combo had the problem.

Have Brian @ WF eyeball it for you and discuss the issue then decide.

WF prices on ES stones are usualy fair for the quality level.
Slightly higher than the not well cuts and slightly lower than the super-ideal cuts in the same market.