How do your stones rate on the HCA?
- Thread starter Manks
- Start date
- Status
canadiangrrl
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2003
- Messages
- 787
Mine rated 1.8 TIC (EX/VG/VG/VG) when I used the angles from the AGS DQD, and 1.0 TIC (EX/EX/EX/VG) when I used the angles given to me by the gentleman who appraised my stone, Rich Sherwood.
A slight change in the pavilion angle can make a huge difference on the HCA.
A slight change in the pavilion angle can make a huge difference on the HCA.
Mara
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 31,003
In Nov 2002 when we got our stone, it rated a 1.5 BIC with something like EX VG VG EX.
In Feb 2003 when Garry made some changes to the HCA...it rated a 2.3 VG with something like VG VG VG EX.
And now whenever the last changes were made (sometime after Feb) to today, it rates 2.8 VG VG G EX.
Confused yet?
Funny add is that to be really honest, if the stone had rated the 2.8 in Nov 2002 when we bought it...we wouldn't have gotten it. It was up against another stone, that was actually pretty 'ideal' in terms of numbers that rated 1.0 TIC EX EX VG EX or similar and we went with the stone we have now because the HCA score was still excellent and was much bigger with diameter due to the shallow proportions.
In Feb 2003 when Garry made some changes to the HCA...it rated a 2.3 VG with something like VG VG VG EX.
And now whenever the last changes were made (sometime after Feb) to today, it rates 2.8 VG VG G EX.
Funny add is that to be really honest, if the stone had rated the 2.8 in Nov 2002 when we bought it...we wouldn't have gotten it. It was up against another stone, that was actually pretty 'ideal' in terms of numbers that rated 1.0 TIC EX EX VG EX or similar and we went with the stone we have now because the HCA score was still excellent and was much bigger with diameter due to the shallow proportions.
Petunia
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2003
- Messages
- 61
Manks
The diamond we purchased back in May of this year scored 1.3 on the HCA. It looked great to me then as it does now. Lately, however, I wish I had compared it to a 0.5 to see if there was any discernable difference between the two. Just a curiosity thing
I am happy with what I have.
Helen
The diamond we purchased back in May of this year scored 1.3 on the HCA. It looked great to me then as it does now. Lately, however, I wish I had compared it to a 0.5 to see if there was any discernable difference between the two. Just a curiosity thing
Helen
hoorray
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 2,798
My new e-ring stone is 1.6 TIC EX,EX,EX,VG. I don't have crown or pav measurements on any of my other stones to run through the HCA, but my bet is they wouldn't score well -- they all look as if they have large tables. (must be the "let's make it look as big as possible deal" and were all purchased years ago pre-pricescope and Internet diamond education.)
I too am curious about how a 1.6 would compare visually to a .6 (we considered one, but it sold before we were ready to move).
I too am curious about how a 1.6 would compare visually to a .6 (we considered one, but it sold before we were ready to move).
Mara
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 31,003
Something to note is that anything .5 or under may not be as good-looking as say something above, because under .6 you start to see a loss of contrast which is essential for the stone to scintillate while being moved. Reds and blacks if you will. So if your stone is something like a 1 TIC or a 1.5 TIC chances are comparing it to a .5 or similar would only make your stone look better
MichelleCarmen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2003
- Messages
- 15,880
I've never run my eng. ring through the HCA since it's set and i only have the table and depth numbers. Next stone purchase will be run through for certain!
Michelle
Michelle
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,808
When I use my TIC diamond's AGS measurements I get 1.1.
When I use the Sarin from Whiteflash I get 1.0.
When I use the Sarin from AGA I get 1.0.
When I use the Sarin from Whiteflash I get 1.0.
When I use the Sarin from AGA I get 1.0.
Canadiangrrl,
I too had my stone evaluated by Rich Sherwood. I was so happy he gave me a great report that I did not run his numbers through the HCA. One number (and I cannot remember which) was ever so slightly different. Rich's appraisal is now in the vault and I am curious!!! It is Sunday night and I know I will not get to the vault this week. I am interested to see if there is any difference. I know it will bug me all week!! Regards,
I too had my stone evaluated by Rich Sherwood. I was so happy he gave me a great report that I did not run his numbers through the HCA. One number (and I cannot remember which) was ever so slightly different. Rich's appraisal is now in the vault and I am curious!!! It is Sunday night and I know I will not get to the vault this week. I am interested to see if there is any difference. I know it will bug me all week!! Regards,
abbymax825
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2003
- Messages
- 76
So I'm obviously new at all of this and trying to learn as much as I can. What is the HCA and what nubers do you need, where do you find it to input the numbers if you have them. What does the Ex, ex ex ex all mean. I know it is excellent but what about the diamond is it describing. If no one wants to take the time in explaining, there must be a web site somewhere???
Patty
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 4,456
abbymax, At the top of the page you will see a link to "cut adviser." This is the Holloway Cut Adviser which was designed to give you an idea as to the quality of the cut of your diamond. You need your stone's measurements including the angles to put into the formula and then it gives you your result. It says on the site that anything below a 2 (or was it 3?) is very good.
canadiangrrl
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2003
- Messages
- 787
And just to add to Patty's remarks - the HCA will presently only work for round brilliant diamonds.
Petunia
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2003
- Messages
- 61
Mara,
Does this stone explain what you describe?
http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_42ct_f_vs1_AGS000.htm
When I plugged the numbers into the HCA, it returned a score of 0.5 ex ex ex ex. Yet when you look at the Isee2 results: 7.7, and the Brillianscope results: Med, Very High, High/Very High. This is not what I would have expected from a 0.5 score. But now I see that that a low score does not equal exceptional performance on these tests. Of course, visually the stone may be very appealing. Then again, it might not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or as my friends would say, beer holder
)
Helen
Does this stone explain what you describe?
http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_42ct_f_vs1_AGS000.htm
When I plugged the numbers into the HCA, it returned a score of 0.5 ex ex ex ex. Yet when you look at the Isee2 results: 7.7, and the Brillianscope results: Med, Very High, High/Very High. This is not what I would have expected from a 0.5 score. But now I see that that a low score does not equal exceptional performance on these tests. Of course, visually the stone may be very appealing. Then again, it might not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or as my friends would say, beer holder
Helen
Mara
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 31,003
Possibly Petunia...maybe one of the experts can chime in on the low HCA scores and contrast. I used to think super low was best but I guess not. Also, if you note on the HCA itself, Garry says that 'your personal preference may be for a diamond with a score of 1.5 instead of 0.5'...that must have something to do with this as well.
Toska
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2003
- Messages
- 114
Mine scores
VG/EX/EX/EX HCA=1.3
What sort of stone scores in the FIC or BIC range?
Why is it that most people scores for spread/diameter, are VG as opposed to excellent? I've seen about 80% of stones score a VG in this category while all of the others vary.
VG/EX/EX/EX HCA=1.3
What sort of stone scores in the FIC or BIC range?
Why is it that most people scores for spread/diameter, are VG as opposed to excellent? I've seen about 80% of stones score a VG in this category while all of the others vary.
Mara
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 31,003
Toska, most of the stones are like this when run through HCA (VG vs EX for spread).
Seems that mostly only the stones like BIC or similar get EX for spread though I have seen a few TIC's get it as well. Spread being EX would seem to require it looking bigger than a typical same size stone...so maybe that area of rating in the HCA is more strict.
I tend to look at the other 3 designations more when I run the #'s and if a Spread = EX then I am pleasantly surprised, but it doesn't seem to be the rule, rather the exception.
Seems that mostly only the stones like BIC or similar get EX for spread though I have seen a few TIC's get it as well. Spread being EX would seem to require it looking bigger than a typical same size stone...so maybe that area of rating in the HCA is more strict.
I tend to look at the other 3 designations more when I run the #'s and if a Spread = EX then I am pleasantly surprised, but it doesn't seem to be the rule, rather the exception.
Toska
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2003
- Messages
- 114
As I previously mentioned my stone scores VG/EX/EX/EX
It has a table of 59.7, I notice that when I plug in 59.6 it scores EX in all of the categories, therefore I believe it is almost 4 excellents, how much difference can 0.1 of a degree significantly make?
It has a table of 59.7, I notice that when I plug in 59.6 it scores EX in all of the categories, therefore I believe it is almost 4 excellents, how much difference can 0.1 of a degree significantly make?
Manks
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2003
- Messages
- 92
Mine scores
VG/EX/EX/EX HCA=1.3
What sort of stone scores in the FIC or BIC range?
Why is it that most people scores for spread/diameter, are VG as opposed to excellent? I've seen about 80% of stones score a VG in this category while all of the others vary.
Now then, let me see if I can explain that:
Spread is a positive characteristic, and a stone increases in spread with increased table size. The reason that spread is important is not for reasons of performance, it is because it makes the stone look bigger - i.e. you are getting a bigger looking stone for your money. Most uninformed buyers and many informed ones, it appears, prefer a stone with good spread for this reason.
The other measures on the HCA are directly about performance, i.e. Light return, fire and scintillation. All of these measures are INCREASED by REDUCING table size from that which will give best spread, because a larger table reduces these properties in a diamond.
The practical upshot of this is that a stone with a low score (i.e. high rating) on light return, fire and scintillation will tend to score lower on spread, whereas a stone with good spread will be compromised on the other three measures.
I am not an expert, if anyone who is would like to improve on that explanation, please feel free.
Manks
VG/EX/EX/EX HCA=1.3
What sort of stone scores in the FIC or BIC range?
Why is it that most people scores for spread/diameter, are VG as opposed to excellent? I've seen about 80% of stones score a VG in this category while all of the others vary.
Now then, let me see if I can explain that:
Spread is a positive characteristic, and a stone increases in spread with increased table size. The reason that spread is important is not for reasons of performance, it is because it makes the stone look bigger - i.e. you are getting a bigger looking stone for your money. Most uninformed buyers and many informed ones, it appears, prefer a stone with good spread for this reason.
The other measures on the HCA are directly about performance, i.e. Light return, fire and scintillation. All of these measures are INCREASED by REDUCING table size from that which will give best spread, because a larger table reduces these properties in a diamond.
The practical upshot of this is that a stone with a low score (i.e. high rating) on light return, fire and scintillation will tend to score lower on spread, whereas a stone with good spread will be compromised on the other three measures.
I am not an expert, if anyone who is would like to improve on that explanation, please feel free.
Manks
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,492
Puuuurrrr
fect
Manks
fect
Manks
Toska
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2003
- Messages
- 114
Garry,
Would you be able to let me know if 0.1% in table size is that much of a difference to visually affect a diamond.
0.1% in table size is the difference between my diamond scoring an excellent in light return as opposed to the Very Good it gets.
Is there any upper/medium/lower range of Very Good on the HCA? Or to put it simply, a VG is just a VG, not matter if it is 0.1% away from Excellent or Good?
What is your interpretation of these scores, can they be broken down any further?
Would you be able to let me know if 0.1% in table size is that much of a difference to visually affect a diamond.
0.1% in table size is the difference between my diamond scoring an excellent in light return as opposed to the Very Good it gets.
Is there any upper/medium/lower range of Very Good on the HCA? Or to put it simply, a VG is just a VG, not matter if it is 0.1% away from Excellent or Good?
What is your interpretation of these scores, can they be broken down any further?
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,492
if you read about this at www.diamond-cut.com.au you will see that .1% is right on the cusp of a numerical rounding.
1.99 vs 2.00 Toska
1.99 vs 2.00 Toska
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,340
Just some comments....
I would not agree with the assessment that larger table = greater spread. This is not the cast all the time. I can show ya diamonds with >60 tables that have yucky spread.
The HCA cut off for "excellent" spread is 60.3% so if the stone has 60.4 it will not get excellent. Why 60.4?... no logical reason that I can think of because you can have a beautifully proportioned diamond with a depth of 60.4-62 and be way more beautiful than a diamond with a 60.3% depth or less.
My point is, while it is interesting to know it is not a factor in determining diamond beauty.
In the coures of my studies on diamond beauty and optics it seems that both ends of the AGS "Ideal" range lack in one area or another. In the steep/deep combos within the AGS "0" there is the obvious "ring of death" ie. an undesireable ring of light leakage under the table but when we go to the opposite end of that spectrum, the shallow/shallow end of the AGS spectrum I have been finding equally disatrous results using the technologies we use. The shallow/shallow combinations are similar to what our posted referred to above which generally have pavilion angles ranging from 40.2 - 40.6 coupled with crown angles in the low 34's and high 33's. These kind of stones do get very low (and seemingly great) HCA scores but IMO are not the most optically pleasing stones. This is why I would stress (to anyone truly concerned with the diamonds optical properties) that an optical analysis be performed. Of course if I had to choose between a steep/deep vs a shallow/shallow I'd go with the shallow/shallow but would choose neither if I had the opportunity to throw another into the fray like a 34.x/40.7-40.9.
My .02c
I would not agree with the assessment that larger table = greater spread. This is not the cast all the time. I can show ya diamonds with >60 tables that have yucky spread.
The HCA cut off for "excellent" spread is 60.3% so if the stone has 60.4 it will not get excellent. Why 60.4?... no logical reason that I can think of because you can have a beautifully proportioned diamond with a depth of 60.4-62 and be way more beautiful than a diamond with a 60.3% depth or less.
My point is, while it is interesting to know it is not a factor in determining diamond beauty.
In the coures of my studies on diamond beauty and optics it seems that both ends of the AGS "Ideal" range lack in one area or another. In the steep/deep combos within the AGS "0" there is the obvious "ring of death" ie. an undesireable ring of light leakage under the table but when we go to the opposite end of that spectrum, the shallow/shallow end of the AGS spectrum I have been finding equally disatrous results using the technologies we use. The shallow/shallow combinations are similar to what our posted referred to above which generally have pavilion angles ranging from 40.2 - 40.6 coupled with crown angles in the low 34's and high 33's. These kind of stones do get very low (and seemingly great) HCA scores but IMO are not the most optically pleasing stones. This is why I would stress (to anyone truly concerned with the diamonds optical properties) that an optical analysis be performed. Of course if I had to choose between a steep/deep vs a shallow/shallow I'd go with the shallow/shallow but would choose neither if I had the opportunity to throw another into the fray like a 34.x/40.7-40.9.
My .02c
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,492
Then read it again till you understand Toska
IT is all there
IT is all there
- Status
Celebrating Mothers And Mentors This Mother's Day
Celebrating Mothers And Mentors This Mother's Day - 05/05
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the April 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 04/26
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024?
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024? - 04/25
300x240.png)