HCA vs Ideal-Scope

[Ceillie]

Can anyone tell me - what the difference is between the info gotten from the HCA on this site and the Ideal-Scope?

I wonder - will the ideal-scope catch stones that the HCA passes, or is the HCA just doing mathematically what the Ideal-scope is doing (for want of a better term) 'graphically'?

 

[oldminer]

The ideal-Scope works on a physical diamond that you can use it on. The HCA PREDICTS how well a diamond will perform based on parameters.

In the end, they ought to be very compatible and give very similar results. The HCA gives you an objective, numeric grade and the Ideal-Scope gives you a subjective, qualitative image.

 

[hakalugi]

in another post, https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/hca-that-thing-actually-works-why-goodoldgold-rocks%E2%80%A6-long.1715/, i tell of how I found the HCA to be a very good predictor of light performance.

The rock in question is 'only' an AGS 2B, but it scores an HCA of .9 (ex/vg/vg/ex)

...and it's ideal scope image is pretty interesting:

you'll note that it's not very symmetrical (no H&A) but you'll also note how much red and black there is and how little light leakage (white) is there.

here's an example of a more symmetrical, but leakier stone:

one last thing, the HCA's last metric (spread) does not deal with light performance per se, but does give an idea of how big this stone would appear compared to others of the same ct. wt.... the stone in the link above did get an EXcelent in this field- so if apparent size is something in which you'd be weighing in as part of the value equation, then the HCA can help on that front, too.

But like dave says- the idealscope lets you know IF and 'where' on an actual diamond light is leaking...