I put the Tiffany diamond through HCA...

[goodys4me]

and what I found was surprising. I''m torn between a Tiffany diamond and a Hearts & Arrows diamond. I put both through HCA & now I''m a bit confused. I saw the Tiffany stone in person & it''s just gorgeous in every way. I''ve seen H&A stones in person, but not this particular one. The H&A stones are also beautiful, but in a different way. They''re almost too perfect & seem "busy" with all of those points of light reflecting off the facets with every color of the spectrum, but there''s just something about them. Anyway, here are the specs for each. The H&A came through HCA as a 1.3, but the Tiffany diamond came through as a 2.8. In the end, I understand it''s whatever I find most appealing, but what exactly are these HCA results telling me? Price-wise, the Tiffany ring (with channel setting) is 1.83 carats for $37,500 and the H&A (diamond only) is 2.01 carats for $35,000.

Tiffany & Co.
VS2/F
Depth: 62.5%
Table: 57%
Pavilion Angle: 40.9
Crown Angle: 35.3
Fluor: None
Polish & Symmetry: Excellent

Hearts & Arrows
VS2/F
Depth: 62.2
Table: 56
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Crown Angle: 34.5
Fluor: None
Polish & Symmetry: Excellent

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

if you can do a side by side comparison in Tiffany''s usually great lighting, you may or may not see the difference,

Also if the Tiffany stone is slightly painted (a complex topic) it could be stella

 

[honey22]

Who determined the second stone to be H&A? Not all vendors have the same high standards of H&A patterning. If for example, you are talking about a HoF, ACA or H&A from Goodold gold, then I would say they are good examples of H&A stones, but if it simply had an EGL cert stating it was H&A then I wouldn''t believe it.

Let''s say, it''s a reliable, true H&A stone, with say an AGS cert and 0 light performance, then I would take it over the Tiffs stone. You are getting a much larger stone, over the 2ct mark (which has quite a price premium for going over that mark, so you need to keep this in mind too I believe) and very nice numbers.

If you compare 1.8ct stones, the price would be much lower than the Tiffs one, you are paying for the name here. If that''s important to you, then go for it. But I don''t think you can compare the prices of a smaller Tiff stones with a larger non-Tiffs stone. The price difference is more than you think. Does this post even make sense?

Anyway, the point to my ramblings is, I wouldn''t pay the extra $$$ for the Tiff stone, when I know I could get a better stone without paying that premium.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/9/2008 7:34:31 PM
Author: honey22
Who determined the second stone to be H&A? Not all vendors have the same high standards of H&A patterning. If for example, you are talking about a HoF, ACA or H&A from Goodold gold, then I would say they are good examples of H&A stones, but if it simply had an EGL cert stating it was H&A then I wouldn''t believe it.

Let''s say, it''s a reliable, true H&A stone, with say an AGS cert and 0 light performance, then I would take it over the Tiffs stone. You are getting a much larger stone, over the 2ct mark (which has quite a price premium for going over that mark, so you need to keep this in mind too I believe) and very nice numbers.

If you compare 1.8ct stones, the price would be much lower than the Tiffs one, you are paying for the name here. If that''s important to you, then go for it. But I don''t think you can compare the prices of a smaller Tiff stones with a larger non-Tiffs stone. The price difference is more than you think. Does this post even make sense?

Anyway, the point to my ramblings is, I wouldn''t pay the extra $$$ for the Tiff stone, when I know I could get a better stone without paying that premium.

Honey even if the patterns were not pricescope standard, with those proportions it is rare for a stone with those proportions to suffer opticaly. Remember there is no proof that H&A''s offers an optical benefit (as per some of the recent long threads)