i was on another forum and i saw a banner with this topic. this must have been talked on this site before so if there is an old thread i apologize but i did ntt find it on my search.
http://www.diamondbrokersoffl.com/why-the-hca-does-not-work.htFor the last few years, there has been a system that claims to give visual performance of diamonds it never sees based on punching in a few numbers which are then spit back out as supposedly accurate visual results?!
Some consumers may have become familiar with this since it is preached as gospel on a particular forum that markets this system. I will give you some of the reasons why this system does not work in giving accurate visual performance of diamonds.
1. First and most obviously, the diamond is never *seen*, so how can visual results be given? They can''t. No gemological laboratory or professional would ever render opinions, and especially visual opinions, on something that it never sees. It starts off inaccurate from the get go. This should be common sense.
2. It is relying on mathematical external averages of only a portion of the diamond that it is supposedly giving visual results of? An average crown angle, pavilion angle, table and total depth cannot render the total visual possiblility of a diamond. There are 57 facets on a round brilliant diamond to begin with. The total external overall picture of the diamond is not even taken into account. Even if it did, it would not matter because the physics of light passing through a diamond and returning to the eye for maximum brilliance cannot be summarized using average measurements by a simplistic formula that is alleged to cover the "visual truth" over a wide spectrum of diamonds. This is so obvious with just a little bit of thought. There is an almost uncountable number of beams of light entering a diamond through each facet of the stone. How can any tool even approximate the visual "beauty" of a diamond when it does not take into account all the facets the beams of light enter from? Let alone the incredible path light takes as it bounces from facet to facet? One of the benefits of cutting a diamond by hand is that the cutter analyzes the diamond while it is being cut to determine how the light reflection is really working on that stone. And he makes adjustments as he goes along.
3. Facet size, length, and placement are something that also affect how a diamond will visually perform. The system does not even take these into consideration. Main facets and minor facets can vary in how they are placed and their shape, size and length can vary too. There is nothing in a mathematical formula that can cover this. There are infinite possiblities. Diamonds must be *seen*.
4. Sarin machines are not that accurate in themselves, and readings can vary on the same machine as well as different machines. It is not unlikely to have several different readings from the same sarin and other sarins can have a larger variance. This in and of itself makes it impossible to rely on numbers to give us *visual* results. External measurements do not provide *visual* results.
5. There is no control where the numbers come from. There are no laboratory conditions that would keep the results consistent from one source. Sarins are being provided from numerous sources and will not be consistent. They could even be from different stones for that matter. So this format is not reliable, the numbers could come out of thin air for all they know. So how can visual results be given? They can''t.
6. There are many ways to cut a beautiful diamond. Diamonds are not Sony TV''s. Light return and beauty are not something that can be predicted soley on numerical formulas. Many diamonds can have different facet arrangements and fall out of the so called "ideal numerical" and produce equivalent or greater light performance than some that are "ideal numerical".
7. Every diamond is individual and the cutters who turn the raw earth into a sparkling gem are individuals themselves. Like artists, they all have a different approach. This is one reason why diamonds are not something where one is identical to the next.
8. The HCA assumes that a diamond is perfectly symmetrical much like a computer rendering. This is not the case with diamonds. All the crown angles and pavilion angles are not identical. They do have variances and are not cut out of a cookie cutter. They are done by hand for the most part.
9. Worth repeating. Paper and numbers cannot give or express the visual or potential visual beauty of a diamond. Most in the industry don''t buy sight unseen. There are many stones that can sound great on paper and can just be average in visual performance.
10. It is theoretical and not supported by industry authorities. Much like a drug that was not approved by the FDA. It has many unspoken side effects. It really shouldn''t be on the market for consumers to use as some judgement of visual cut quality, or base buying decisions on. There are many things on the web that aren''t true, so keep that in mind. Test the facts and see if they hold water. This is mainly for consumers to review so that they can maintain a common sense approach to buying a diamond. There are some on the web that will try to convince you otherwise in their marketing efforts to have some magic bean calculator that will render visual opinions on something it doesn''t see. There is no one on the net that can give you results or accurate opinions on how a diamond looks with a few numbers and without *seeing* it. Think about that.
m
http://www.diamondbrokersoffl.com/why-the-hca-does-not-work.htFor the last few years, there has been a system that claims to give visual performance of diamonds it never sees based on punching in a few numbers which are then spit back out as supposedly accurate visual results?!
Some consumers may have become familiar with this since it is preached as gospel on a particular forum that markets this system. I will give you some of the reasons why this system does not work in giving accurate visual performance of diamonds.
1. First and most obviously, the diamond is never *seen*, so how can visual results be given? They can''t. No gemological laboratory or professional would ever render opinions, and especially visual opinions, on something that it never sees. It starts off inaccurate from the get go. This should be common sense.
2. It is relying on mathematical external averages of only a portion of the diamond that it is supposedly giving visual results of? An average crown angle, pavilion angle, table and total depth cannot render the total visual possiblility of a diamond. There are 57 facets on a round brilliant diamond to begin with. The total external overall picture of the diamond is not even taken into account. Even if it did, it would not matter because the physics of light passing through a diamond and returning to the eye for maximum brilliance cannot be summarized using average measurements by a simplistic formula that is alleged to cover the "visual truth" over a wide spectrum of diamonds. This is so obvious with just a little bit of thought. There is an almost uncountable number of beams of light entering a diamond through each facet of the stone. How can any tool even approximate the visual "beauty" of a diamond when it does not take into account all the facets the beams of light enter from? Let alone the incredible path light takes as it bounces from facet to facet? One of the benefits of cutting a diamond by hand is that the cutter analyzes the diamond while it is being cut to determine how the light reflection is really working on that stone. And he makes adjustments as he goes along.
3. Facet size, length, and placement are something that also affect how a diamond will visually perform. The system does not even take these into consideration. Main facets and minor facets can vary in how they are placed and their shape, size and length can vary too. There is nothing in a mathematical formula that can cover this. There are infinite possiblities. Diamonds must be *seen*.
4. Sarin machines are not that accurate in themselves, and readings can vary on the same machine as well as different machines. It is not unlikely to have several different readings from the same sarin and other sarins can have a larger variance. This in and of itself makes it impossible to rely on numbers to give us *visual* results. External measurements do not provide *visual* results.
5. There is no control where the numbers come from. There are no laboratory conditions that would keep the results consistent from one source. Sarins are being provided from numerous sources and will not be consistent. They could even be from different stones for that matter. So this format is not reliable, the numbers could come out of thin air for all they know. So how can visual results be given? They can''t.
6. There are many ways to cut a beautiful diamond. Diamonds are not Sony TV''s. Light return and beauty are not something that can be predicted soley on numerical formulas. Many diamonds can have different facet arrangements and fall out of the so called "ideal numerical" and produce equivalent or greater light performance than some that are "ideal numerical".
7. Every diamond is individual and the cutters who turn the raw earth into a sparkling gem are individuals themselves. Like artists, they all have a different approach. This is one reason why diamonds are not something where one is identical to the next.
8. The HCA assumes that a diamond is perfectly symmetrical much like a computer rendering. This is not the case with diamonds. All the crown angles and pavilion angles are not identical. They do have variances and are not cut out of a cookie cutter. They are done by hand for the most part.
9. Worth repeating. Paper and numbers cannot give or express the visual or potential visual beauty of a diamond. Most in the industry don''t buy sight unseen. There are many stones that can sound great on paper and can just be average in visual performance.
10. It is theoretical and not supported by industry authorities. Much like a drug that was not approved by the FDA. It has many unspoken side effects. It really shouldn''t be on the market for consumers to use as some judgement of visual cut quality, or base buying decisions on. There are many things on the web that aren''t true, so keep that in mind. Test the facts and see if they hold water. This is mainly for consumers to review so that they can maintain a common sense approach to buying a diamond. There are some on the web that will try to convince you otherwise in their marketing efforts to have some magic bean calculator that will render visual opinions on something it doesn''t see. There is no one on the net that can give you results or accurate opinions on how a diamond looks with a few numbers and without *seeing* it. Think about that.
m
300x240.png)