How does this stone throw you?

[finchuck]

My search continues and right now I''m looking at a few other diamonds. The HCA isn''t under 2, what do you guys think?

0.620cts AGS-0 I/SI1 Round H&A
Depth % 61.7
Table % 57
Crown Angle 34
Pavilion Angle 41.1

 

[Magnum]

Pictures look good to me.

The HCA is definitely not perfect, but in my opinion, is a good sorting tool. Once you've taken the time to get idealscope and H&A pictures, I would tend to lean more on what they're telling you than the what the HCA says. In this case the pictures are suggesting that this a a very good performing stone. My only question would be whether or not the stone is an eye-clean SI1. I would think that it probably is, I'm just not sure about the shading at the base of the arrow in the twelve o'clock position. Is that an inclusion, or is it some kind of photographic illusion? If it is an inclusion, have you asked if it's visible to the naked eye? Other than that very minor concern, I thin it looks like a great choice.

 

[Murph]

Hi finchuck,

What is the inclusion? I cant see anything in the live shot.
Looking at the arrows shot, the shading doesn't bother me Magnum, it looks like the whle stone is sitting at a slight tilt. I spent about an hour on the phone yesterday with one of the vendors here and they explained how minor shifts in position can have a huge impact on the photography.

Murph

 

[baltneu]

finchuk
Thought you bought your diamond already?

 

[finchuck]

I did but I realized that that I have very particular eyes in terms of clarity, so I'm looking at a few others now.

 

[hoorray]

Hi Finchuck,

This looks like a beautiful stone, but it sounds as if you need to investigate the inclusions in more detail since you are clarity sensitive.

Have they told you where and what type the inclusions are? Can they send you pictures of them?

 

[finchuck]

Yep, they said that there two very small feathers that can't be seen with the naked eye, and barely with a loupe.

 

[Magnum]

It must have been a photograaphic illusion I was seeing then. The diamond looks great, and after hearing that it is indeed very eye-clean, I don't see any reason not to go for it. Best of luck this time around.

 

[finchuck]

So you don't see the HCA score as a problem?

Does the Ideal Scope give you a better idea of the performance than the HCA?

 

[Magnum]

"So you don't see the HCA score as a problem?"

Not unless it's something that's going to bother you when you think about the diamond. In my opinion, the HCA is kind of like a first step tool to help weed through all the potential diamonds that are out there. Admittedly, it's going to include a few diamonds that are not the best performing, and it's going to leave some out that are amazing, but for the most part, it gives you a pretty good chance of finding a nice diamond if you restrict you search to stones that score less than 2. The other problem is that the HCA is only as accurate as the information it was given. I just read a thread where someone submitted a diamond for a sarin report three times, and the pavilion angle came back slightly different all three times (40.8, 40.9, and 41.0). Therefore, it's possible your stone could really have a 41 degree pavilion angle, and thus, score a 1.5 TIC EX/EX/VG/EX.

For those reasons above, my answer to your second question is yes, I would expect the idealscope to give me a better idea of the performance of the diamond than the HCA. The idealscope is evaluating the actual diamond itself and doesn't care what errors might be associated with the sarin machine, and unlike the HCA, the IS does take into account symmetry and minor facets, because it's acctually looking at the diamond. If you read the idealscope/firescope section of goodoldgold's tutorial again, jonathan does a nice job of explaining what the IS is showing you.

 

[finchuck]

After looking at a few vendors, I decided to go with this stone. We'll see how she turns out.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 5/15/2004 12:00:29 PM finchuck wrote:

So you don't see the HCA score as a problem?

Does the Ideal Scope give you a better idea of the performance than the HCA?----------------

No... and right... The HCA is definitely not as precise (it misses minor facets' effect by design) as the Iscope. The pictures indicate a very nice piece - and I hope it will look just so to you in person

 

[finchuck]

Thanks guys... while the HCA threw me off a bit at first, I decided to go with your insight and trust the IS image. This baby will be arriving tomorrow

 

[WinkHPD]

I am guessing that the stone is a little "steep and deep" for the under 2 on the HCA. Some of the speakers at the cutting symposium talked about this as an issue for minor loss of brilliance. At least that is my understanding from my discussions this past weekend with Paul Slegers.

If the pavilion angle were closer to 4.6 to 4.7 I am thinking that you would be getting a lower (higher performance) according to HCA, but I am also thinking that this will be an incredibly beautiful stone when seen by the eye.

Good luck!

Wink

 

[GlitterGal]

Hi Robert,

Congrats (again) on your purchase! Melissa’s diamond ring looks beautiful in the pictures. Please let us know how it looks in person when you receive it tomorrow – I really hope that this stone ends up working out for you this time. It’s stunning in those photos!

Congrats once again on your upcoming engagement and warmest wishes to you both!

Kindest regards always,
Linda

 

[uclaure]

The ring looks beautiful. I hope that you really like this one and decide to keep it

I noticed that Megan didn't taken close up pictures of this ring, was it so that your super human sight wouldn't be able to pick up the inclusions?j/k I'm sure that you will absolutely love it. Guess what? I have your old diamond. It is spectacular! That puppy shines like there is no tomorrow. Luckily I was not blessed with your eyesight and wasn't able to see the inclusions. Right now it's at a local jeweler waiting to get set.

 

[finchuck]

Hey that's great! I'm glad you opted for that route rather than the promise ring... good luck

 

[Magnum]

Looks like a great diamond and ring.

It's good to hear that you've found a stone that you're happy with. I know that the problem with the other one was the visible (to superman

) inclusion, but how does the light performance compare to this one. I'm sure it might be tough just from memory, but is it similar, or can you actually notice a difference in light performance, as well? Just curious. Anyway, congratulations on your future engagement.

 

[finchuck]

Of course both are beautiful stones, but I did notice that under more mute lighting like in our kitchen when we don't have the spotlights on, this one scintillates more. The stone seems to throw the light back at you in this particular lighting whereas the other one didn't so much.

The only reason I notice this is because when I took it out of the package, that was the first thing that grabbed my attention. I was trying to look for inclusions, but I couldn't because of all the light coming back in my face! I couldn't look into the stone at all, it was all light.

In bright bathroom lighting it seems to perform on par with the 0.811. I haven't had a chance to get it out in the sunlight though, I'm curious to see how she looks out there. I just can't believe how much of a difference there is in performance. It's not that this is necessarily perfoming better, it's just different. I guess that's where variations like BIC, TIC and FIC come into play.

 

[baltneu]

Finchuk
Who did the setting for you on this ring? Looks very nice.

 

[Skybluewater]

Nice looking stone and super ring!