lesser of evils? HCA vs AGA scores for two ags zeros. Please help me decide

[johngalt2004]

Here are two ags light performance zeros (certs from summer of this year). The one with the better HCA score is an AGA 1-B, the one with the worse HCA score is an AGA 1-A. I know many of you would "keep looking" but if a variety of non-scientific but nonetheless compelling concerns forced you to choose one of these which would it be?

1.17 ct
SI1
H
56.9 table
60.4 depth
34.3 crown angle
14.7 crown %
41.2 pavilion angle
43.3 pavilion %
6.86 X 6.86
AGA 1-A
HCA 3 (if you do HCA with percentages it gets 1.6 even with max possible .35 culet penalty)
$6500


1.19 ct
SI2 (very eye-clean, clarity is a wash to me)
H
57.7 table
61.1 depth
33.6 crown angle
14.1 crown %
41.2 pavilion angle
43.6 pavilion %
6.82 X 6.85
AGA 1-B
HCA 2.6 (if you do HCA with percentages it does not help) fwiw Garry posted before that he has no problem with this stone.
$6100

One of these happens to have excellent hearts... are these close enough that the hearts would be a tiebreaker? I think it is the 1.19 with superior hearts but will make sure.

The AGA scoring rewards a lower pavilion % vs angle. And ironically rewards a steeper crown which is penalized under HCA
The HCA scoring rewards a shallower crown to compensate for the steep pavilion angle, and punishes the 41.2 PA

Visually I can't tell a difference and the jeweler expressed a very small preference for the 1.19 (but I think he is in love with it because he picked such an especially clean SI2). I don't think there is any real-world visual difference.

Which, on balance, is superior on paper?

Thanks for your opinions they are so very valued!

 

[whatmeworry]

Date: 9/25/2007 3:38:51 PM
Author:johngalt2004

Here are two ags light performance zeros (certs from summer of this year). The one with the better HCA score is an AGA 1-B, the one with the worse HCA score is an AGA 1-A. I know many of you would ''keep looking'' but if a variety of non-scientific but nonetheless compelling concerns forced you to choose one of these which would it be?

1.17 ct
SI1
H
56.9 table
60.4 depth
34.3 crown angle
14.7 crown %
41.2 pavilion angle
43.3 pavilion %
6.86 X 6.86 X 4.16
AGA 1-A
HCA 3 (if you do HCA with percentages it gets 1.6 even with max possible .35 culet penalty)
$6500


1.19 ct
SI2 (very eye-clean, clarity is a wash to me)
H
57.7 table
61.1 depth
33.6 crown angle
14.1 crown %
41.2 pavilion angle
43.6 pavilion %
6.82 X 6.85 X 4.16
AGA 1-B
HCA 2.6 (if you do HCA with percentages it does not help) fwiw Garry posted before that he has no problem with this stone.
$6100

One of these happens to have excellent hearts... are these close enough that the hearts would be a tiebreaker? I think it is the 1.19 with superior hearts but will make sure.

The AGA scoring rewards a lower pavilion % vs angle. And ironically rewards a steeper crown which is penalized under HCA
The HCA scoring rewards a shallower crown to compensate for the steep pavilion angle, and punishes the 41.2 PA

Visually I can''t tell a difference and the jeweler expressed a very small preference for the 1.19 (but I think he is in love with it because he picked such an especially clean SI2). I don''t think there is any real-world visual difference.

Which, on balance, is superior on paper?

Thanks for your opinions they are so very valued!

If that''s the case, pick the cheaper one.

 

[liv2golf]

So, who IS John Galt...

Just a little sidebar - in that if you are moderately well read, this screen name is quite funny... and as I am in the middle of reading a certain novel, it struck me as worth mentionnig... Maybe the owner of the user name will make it clear to those of you who don''t already recognize the name... I won''t spoil his (her?) fun in choosing that screen name...!!

 

[johngalt2004]

Thanks for the screen name compliment. I get a lot of cyber-winks from the folks who have read and enjoyed Atlas Shrugged.

By the way if I cheat/fudge the PA down a tenth of a degree on the HCA, it pulls the 1.19 into "the zone", but not the 1.17.

I can''t see a difference, probably in real world nobody can, but I can''t say I have fine taste in these things either. Just want to do right by my girl (which is why I am pressed kind of to choose one of these and not extend a search... she likes this jeweler and would be disappointed in me if I either tried to get out from under him or pressed him to keep looking. I have made her crazy with the second guessing and worrying).

Any kind of resale/marketability is not in the question. Just if the experts can see something in these numbers I''d like to know about it. I know pricescopers would not tend to buy diamonds over 2.0 but I may not have the luxury to search that far. Actually I did have one to choose from that was a 1.0 but it did not look better than these (really, not that I could see) and in fact had clouds which disqualified it from my search.

Neither exhibits color retention or table reflection.

AGA 1-A sounds kind of sexy but will not "matter" any more than HCA 1.9 when it is all said and done. My wife does not run in circles where HCA is discussed so the ags000 pedigree will probably suffice socially

 

[chrono]

Then the 1.19 ct stone would be the choice:
1. It is cheaper
2. It is eye clean to you
3. Both look comparable to you
4. The HCA hits the sweet spot.

 

[johngalt2004]

Date: 9/25/2007 4:18:12 PM
Author: Chrono
Then the 1.19 ct stone would be the choice:
1. It is cheaper
2. It is eye clean to you
3. Both look comparable to you
4. The HCA hits the sweet spot.

I''ve seen it implied that the HCA acceptable range really extends up into the 2''s but no real definitive statement about how far... and I haven''t really seen Garry say it (I did see strmrdr say that Garry had said it - perhaps that was back in 2005, but haven''t seen Garry really spell it out...).

I understand it is a slippery slope. If it extends to 2.5, why not to 3.0? Why not to any with no single characteristic less than VG?

It is a little odd how the AGA giveth and the HCA taketh away when adding one degree to the crown height

Also I have found it hard to comp similar stones... the cut quality search does not pull up any 41.2 pavilion ags graded stones for comparison. So this just seems to be a not very common and somewhat tricky area... the 41.2/33.x

I also saw once in 2004 that Rhino said this combo had bright potential.

One thing that seems to be missing here on PS is some email contact and Private Messaging function I notice... if you wanna ask Garry or Rhino or strmrdr or oldminer something... seems you gotta just post it out here for the rest of the world to see

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/25/2007 7:51:24 PM
Author: johngalt2004

I've seen it implied that the HCA acceptable range really extends up into the 2's but no real definitive statement about how far... and I haven't really seen Garry say it (I did see strmrdr say that Garry had said it - perhaps that was back in 2005, but haven't seen Garry really spell it out...).

I understand it is a slippery slope. If it extends to 2.5, why not to 3.0? Why not to any with no single characteristic less than VG?

It is a little odd how the AGA giveth and the HCA taketh away when adding one degree to the crown height

Also I have found it hard to comp similar stones... the cut quality search does not pull up any 41.2 pavilion ags graded stones for comparison. So this just seems to be a not very common and somewhat tricky area... the 41.2/33.x

I also saw once in 2004 that Rhino said this combo had bright potential.

One thing that seems to be missing here on PS is some email contact and Private Messaging function I notice... if you wanna ask Garry or Rhino or strmrdr or oldminer something... seems you gotta just post it out here for the rest of the world to see

over 2 too be taken on a case by case basis.
The 1.19 sounds like the winner between these 2.
The raw angles are a wash but h&a and cheaper makes the 1.19 a winner.