Holloway Score of 5.9 on a Triple X (GIA)-Still good or not?

[sailorneptune]

Hello everyone! I just recently got engaged and got my ring. I loved the diamond and fell in love with it at the store. They showed me it in natural and store lighting. After much researching and reading about diamonds I found the Holloway Score and my diamond scored a sad 5.9. (It has a slighty thick girdle, does that take away from its brilliant/fire?)
My diamond does sparkle under all lighting, just differently. It never looks dull or hazy, but got such a low score on Holloway. If I had got a Excellent Holloway score would the diamond be even more sparkly?
Here are my stats: F/GIA-excellent polish, cut, symmetry), VS2, Shane Classic




Here are the pictures of my ring in different lighting (natural, fluorescene, dim):

 

[rockysalamander]

If you love your diamond and are not looking to change or replace it, I'm not sure that getting comments here will be useful. They could really be hurtful, even if true, and undermine your love of this stone. Just consider carefully.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Here's my take:
Both of these statements are true
1) HCA works as intended.
2) Some great stones that perform admirably in real life will score worse than 2- in some cases a lot worse.

 

[flyingpig]

36/41 is not a combo that we recommend. But it is not as disastrous as what many think and what HCA score indicates. It can be beautiful or mediocre depending on how it is cut and the actual angle numbers are rounded.

 

[sailorneptune]

Thank you for everyone responses! @Rockdiamond what are the reasons certain stones be great in real life but score not so good on Holloway?

 

[HDer]

Think about it this way: HCA tries to define the "ideal" cut for diamonds that are already "excellent" cut. So, as the name would suggest if the diamond is already excellently cut, the room for improvement is not huge.

So let's say there's a 10% or a 20% increase in brilliance (by my estimates this is generous). Is there a difference? Sure. Would you notice normally if you don't have the diamonds side by side? Probably not, unless you're a trained gemologist.

It's the same as clarity or color. There are diminishing returns.

 

[HDer]

I think your diamond is lovely btw.

 

[Karl_K]

The differences are subtle in some lighting but once you see them you cant unsee them so unless you really really want to know I don't feel its right to point them out.

 

[totallyfree]

Love your ring! Personally I don't think many people would be able to visually 'pick' an ideal HCA diamond. It's like choosing between an F or a D colour diamond, or a few 0.XXmms in size difference. People (human minds!) just aren't that good at picking out the detail.

 

[flyingpig]

Thank you for everyone responses! @Rockdiamond what are the reasons certain stones be great in real life but score not so good on Holloway?

HCA favors stones with strong light return, which are often shallow cut diamonds, and punishes steep and deep combos, such as 35.5/40.8, 35/41, 35.5/41, and 36/41, which can be beautiful, awful or somewhere in between. HCA is reasonably useful, but not without flaws and limitations. There is no perfect cut screening tool. That includes GIA and AGS cut grading system. It is like you cannot use P/E ratio alone to evaluate a stock, or 0-60mph and braking distance alone to measure car's performance.

Can a 36/41 be beautiful?? yes. Are there better stones out there?? yes.

 

[sailorneptune]

Thank you for everyone responses. I am curious, can the light return be influenced by the girdle? I think when it is time to upgrade I will have to find an HCA <2 diamond and compare it to mine hehe.

 

[flyingpig]

Thank you for everyone responses. I am curious, can the light return be influenced by the girdle? I think when it is time to upgrade I will have to find an HCA <2 diamond and compare it to mine hehe.

Short answer: no
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aset-and-huge-girdles.219457/#post-3987066

If the girdle is too thin, the diamond is prone to chipping. If too thick, you lose alot of spread. As long as it is "thin to slightly thick" (which is required for EX cut grade), the diamond is durable and pro

 

[sailorneptune]

Have you guys heard of this site that, Cut score calculator from Enchanted Diamond?

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/cut-score-calculator?certificate=6201117044
They score all GIA cut, I went and searched many different GIA excellent cuts and some of them scored in the 60%, very poor. I saw a 2 carat diamond that was rated as Good cut by GIA, but scored a 25%! Mine scored exceptionally well-cut, 93.4%. (The best is 100%)

 

[ChristineRose]

If GIA grades a stone as excellent, it is unlikely to be hideous. There are exceptions, but obviously not this one.

The HCA looks at a lot fewer inputs than what GIA looks at. The purpose of the HCA is to narrow down the online databases to those diamonds most likely to be attractive in real life. The HCA, whether good or bad, is not a sure indicator of anything.

The GIA excellent is much broader than the HCA. The excellent category was originally meant to cover all the stones that somebody liked. Some people actually prefer the "worse" stones. This is highly dependent on lighting, and GIA has been criticized for that.

The problem nowadays is that the majority of stones are cut to just exactly hit the excellent range. That means that the majority of stones are, at best, "quirky-pretty" or "not to everyone's taste."

The upshot is that if you like it, you like it. Some people would stop there. But if it truly bothers you, compare it to some branded superideals in a variety of lighting. At least then you'll know where you stand.

 

[rockysalamander]

Have you guys heard of this site that, Cut score calculator from Enchanted Diamond?

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/cut-score-calculator?certificate=6201117044
They score all GIA cut, I went and searched many different GIA excellent cuts and some of them scored in the 60%, very poor. I saw a 2 carat diamond that was rated as Good cut by GIA, but scored a 25%! Mine scored exceptionally well-cut, 93.4%. (The best is 100%)

Its just a mathematical model, like the HCA tool, "Cut Score is a number based on an advanced mathematical formula created by Enchanted Diamonds that tells you how well a diamond is cut based on our preferences of what makes a diamond beautiful and produces the highest likelihood of exceptional light return...Some of the factors that determine Cut Score are: depth percentage, table percentage, girdle thickness, and crown height percentage." (emphasis added)

These are all kinds of ways to input the concrete, fixed details about a diamond to predict relative performance withing a specific output framework -- because they have defined that each "score" has to have some specific combination of numbers. Which, is really trying to predict "beauty" for the human viewer of the diamond. But, even with that, you'll find great variation by age and height; likely thanks to the less flexible lens of the eyes as you go over age 40 and angle of view based on height, respectively. There is also observer bias based on the observer's experience with diamonds (have they been exposed to high-performing stones or only big-box quality; do they know old cuts or only moderns; have they seen any number of non-rounds to have a basis to judge, etc.).

What matters is what your eyes tell you. You are the arbiter of beauty for this diamond for youself.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you for everyone responses! @Rockdiamond what are the reasons certain stones be great in real life but score not so good on Holloway?

Thanks for the interesting discussion!
There are so many factors to consider that are totally outside the scope of HCA.
For example- instead of taking the HCA number as some sort of absolute, that stands on it's own, how about including the price as and dimensions as other important factors?
Say a consumer has $10k to spend. They can get a 6.3mm HCA1.5, or a 6.6mm HCA 5- both same color clarity.
I get Karls point about "unseeing" things, well how about an easily noticeable difference in size? And NO, the lower HCA 6.3 won't look as large due to the better cut.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Have you guys heard of this site that, Cut score calculator from Enchanted Diamond?

https://enchanteddiamonds.com/cut-score-calculator?certificate=6201117044
They score all GIA cut, I went and searched many different GIA excellent cuts and some of them scored in the 60%, very poor. I saw a 2 carat diamond that was rated as Good cut by GIA, but scored a 25%! Mine scored exceptionally well-cut, 93.4%. (The best is 100%)

VERY VERY VERY important difference.
Garry Holliway designed the HCA as an "open source" tool.
It can be used on any diamond. The principles behind it are well understood- there's no "secret sauce"
Any vendor issuing cut grades ( other than GIA/AGSL) to try and influence a buyer is using deceptive methods.

 

[sailorneptune]

Its just a mathematical model, like the HCA tool, "Cut Score is a number based on an advanced mathematical formula created by Enchanted Diamonds that tells you how well a diamond is cut based on our preferences of what makes a diamond beautiful and produces the highest likelihood of exceptional light return...Some of the factors that determine Cut Score are: depth percentage, table percentage, girdle thickness, and crown height percentage." (emphasis added)

These are all kinds of ways to input the concrete, fixed details about a diamond to predict relative performance withing a specific output framework -- because they have defined that each "score" has to have some specific combination of numbers. Which, is really trying to predict "beauty" for the human viewer of the diamond. But, even with that, you'll find great variation by age and height; likely thanks to the less flexible lens of the eyes as you go over age 40 and angle of view based on height, respectively. There is also observer bias based on the observer's experience with diamonds (have they been exposed to high-performing stones or only big-box quality; do they know old cuts or only moderns; have they seen any number of non-rounds to have a basis to judge, etc.).

What matters is what your eyes tell you. You are the arbiter of beauty for this diamond for youself.

I compared this diamond https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=2156712985
It got a higher Holloway score 3.8 compared to 5.9 for mine. Enchanted Diamond showed it as 73.7 mediocre compared to mine 93.4 exceptionally well-cut. I thought that it is interesting that the two systems are very different. I went on Shaneco website and plugged in the GIA numbers for most of their 1.5-2 carat Shane Classics (all have excellent cut, polish, symmetry). Only 2 out of 7 that I found scored around mine or higher. I thought that was very interesting too.

 

[sailorneptune]

This is the original diamond and engagement ring I picked out.
GIA report for old ring :https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=6231586138

On Enchanted Diamond it got a 61.9 (not well-cut)
Stats are 1.5 carat/ I/ SI1

I compared this diamond to the one I have now in both store and natural lighting and the one I have now blew it out of the water. Maybe it was the cloud in it? I am not sure, but I thought it is interesting that on Holloway Cut it scored much better than my other diamond.

 

[Rockdiamond]

sailorneptune- the point I was trying to make about grading systems being used as advertising.....an anaolgy.
Say Chevy started rating their cars based on some secret aspects that rates their car higher than a Ford. A rating system which is not based on published specs- secret stuff ( whatever that might be).
Without understanding the parameters, all we can deduce is that Chevy is trying to use the score to influence buyers in their favor. Without a doubt, we can't use a company's own "secret" scoring system as a comparative tool.

There have been so many cases here on PS of folks buying a diamond off "Virtual" sites using blind grading systems- then they come to find out the diamond is not in the hands of that seller, nor can they even obtain it.

Point is- your stone looks great- please don;t second guess yourself out of enjoying its beauty!

 

[sailorneptune]

sailorneptune- the point I was trying to make about grading systems being used as advertising.....an anaolgy.
Say Chevy started rating their cars based on some secret aspects that rates their car higher than a Ford. A rating system which is not based on published specs- secret stuff ( whatever that might be).
Without understanding the parameters, all we can deduce is that Chevy is trying to use the score to influence buyers in their favor. Without a doubt, we can't use a company's own "secret" scoring system as a comparative tool.

There have been so many cases here on PS of folks buying a diamond off "Virtual" sites using blind grading systems- then they come to find out the diamond is not in the hands of that seller, nor can they even obtain it.

Point is- your stone looks great- please don;t second guess yourself out of enjoying its beauty!

Ah I see, so Enchanted Diamond grading system is based on secret aspects. I do see what you are saying. I am curious to what their excuses are for not sharing that secret. It just makes it much more suspcious. Thank you for your feedback!

 

[ChristineRose]

There's a long thread where the Enchanted Diamonds guy chimes in:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cut-score-on-enchanted-diamonds-website.221988/

He doesn't explain his system, and he insists that he can get his customers branded stones that are not available to him. It isn't clear but it looks like he uses the score to tell someone that the branded superideal he can't get the buyer after all is not as good as the brand X stone he is offering.

 

[HDer]

Thanks for the interesting discussion!
There are so many factors to consider that are totally outside the scope of HCA.
For example- instead of taking the HCA number as some sort of absolute, that stands on it's own, how about including the price as and dimensions as other important factors?
Say a consumer has $10k to spend. They can get a 6.3mm HCA1.5, or a 6.6mm HCA 5- both same color clarity.
I get Karls point about "unseeing" things, well how about an easily noticeable difference in size? And NO, the lower HCA 6.3 won't look as large due to the better cut.

Thank you for chiming in. I think a lot of people on this forum are going too far when it comes to cut, at least when it comes to criticizing perfectly acceptable stones. Cut is King yes, but not King, Queen, Jack, and Ace. On my thread for example, many many many people advised me to go for a lower HCA 1.75 carat stone rather than a higher HCA 2 carat stone: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/2-carats-under-8k-doable-or-bad-idea.233330/

 

[flyingpig]

Thanks for the interesting discussion!
There are so many factors to consider that are totally outside the scope of HCA.
For example- instead of taking the HCA number as some sort of absolute, that stands on it's own, how about including the price as and dimensions as other important factors?
Say a consumer has $10k to spend. They can get a 6.3mm HCA1.5, or a 6.6mm HCA 5- both same color clarity.
I get Karls point about "unseeing" things, well how about an easily noticeable difference in size? And NO, the lower HCA 6.3 won't look as large due to the better cut.

It is a highly unlikely scenario and a bad example. 6.3mm is a sub 1.0c or a terribly cut 1.0c (63% depth), and 6.6mm is almost 1.1c. They are in completely different categories. In most cases, PS members help finding a well cut 1.0x c 6.45~6.55mm, which I strongly believe is superior to either 6.3mm HCA 1.5 or 6.6mm HCA 5.

 

[gm89uk]

VERY VERY VERY important difference.
Garry Holliway designed the HCA as an "open source" tool.
Any vendor issuing cut grades ( other than GIA/AGSL) to try and influence a buyer is using deceptive methods.

Open source? where is the algorithm? Free of commercial purpose you mean?

 

[flyingpig]

Open source? where is the algorithm? Free of commercial purpose you mean?

I think it is more like freeware than open source. HCA is still proprietary.
It is not open source. Otherwise, I (or someone else) would have made modification already.

 

[gm89uk]

I very briefly attempted to emulate it but gave up pretty quickly. I might give it another go eventually.

I note the artificial intelligence group managed to do successfully (https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ppraisal-with-artificial-intelligence.231847/). I think studying it would be interesting to understand the physics behind light leakage. For example if you go more extreme steep deep like (37/41.4) would score better than (36/41) combo, whereas more rudimentary scoring like enchanted diamonds would score that combo lower (as it is not based on true light leakage simulation). Sorry to be off topic.

 

[Rockdiamond]

It is a highly unlikely scenario and a bad example. 6.3mm is a sub 1.0c or a terribly cut 1.0c (63% depth), and 6.6mm is almost 1.1c. They are in completely different categories. In most cases, PS members help finding a well cut 1.0x c 6.45~6.55mm, which I strongly believe is superior to either 6.3mm HCA 1.5 or 6.6mm HCA 5.

I did write quickly, without doing "research"- but after you got me thinking. So I did some searching and found a very good example.
This stone-
63% depth, 57% table, 34.5° crown angle, 40.6° pavilion angle
scores 1 on HCA
The diamond measures 6.29 x 6.32 x 3.97

In fairness, very likely you and others would knock such a stone based on spread.
Nor can I see a stone like that making branded "Super Ideal"- we agree ( almost) that many branded ideal cut 1ct stones spread about 6.4-6.5
If a lower scoring hypothetical 60/60 was selling for 10% less, you'd compare to a 1.10ct- which might spread 6.8mm.
Can a low scoring HCA stone look amazing- yes, it can.
As Karl says, you can't "unsee" the difference- and yes, it can be easy to see the difference.
The super Ideal has brighter flashes.
But the size difference is also impactful- and it's not like a lower scoring stone won't look great by virtue of that fact alone.
I mean- the HCA works- it will cull some pretty bad candidates. But it also eliminates other stones which look amazing in person.

Open source? where is the algorithm? Free of commercial purpose you mean?

Thanks for the correction!
My bad- I should look up words before using them.
I meant to say- it was designed for the public to use in a beneficial manner.
As opposed to "secret" cut grades. I've looked at literally hundreds of sites that grade the cut of all their stones- fancy shapes included.
I've NEVER seen one that made sense from a gemological standpoint.
The HCA makes perfect sense.

 

[sailorneptune]

why do you guys think my previous ring scored much better on Holloway but paled when compared to my diamond now? Can clouds cause a diamond to not sparkle at much?

 

[HDer]

why do you guys think my previous ring scored much better on Holloway but paled when compared to my diamond now? Can clouds cause a diamond to not sparkle at much?

I'm not a diamond industry guy, but my two guesses would be 1) yes, clouds can cause dullness, and 2) dirt. If you sent your old ring in for a cleaning my guess is that it would likely sparkle more.

3rd factor is that HCA is an indicator but not exact, so even good HCA stones might be duller.