My Diamond and the New HCA!

[headlight]

Just ran my stone's specs, and my stone scored a little better
It got a 1.7 before (of which I was THRILLED, given my previous stone got like a 4-something lol!).
With the new program it got a 1.6!
It also said that my stone (which is a wee bit smaller than other 2.01-ct. RBs) is AVERAGE for "Looks like size"! It didn't say it was small for its size I was shocked (but pleasantly surprised).
It also said: "Should sparkle beautifully and looks the usual size for its carat weight."
I have to tell you all that I REALLY needed this little boost because I was getting a bit down because my depth is not PS-worthy and I was feeling I made another bad diamond choice. (With that said, I just saw on James Allen an AGS 0 in a 2.01-ct. that was also a 8.01mm... of course we don't have access to the specs anymore, but that tells me one thing: That stone, too, is a wee bit deeper cut than PS'ers want to see... and it is an AGS 0!
HAS ANYONE ELSE RUN THEIR DIAMOND'S NUMBERS IN THE NEW HCA?

 

[Pimberly]

I ran mine yesterday and it also came back .1 lower than it did with the old program.

Screenshot from old version:


And from the new version:



I’m very pleased with the results! We’re not engaged yet, so my boyfriend is keeping the diamond away from me for the time being. I can’t wait to wear it every day!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Just ran my stone's specs, and my stone scored a little better
It got a 1.7 before (of which I was THRILLED, given my previous stone got like a 4-something lol!).
With the new program it got a 1.6!
In adding Looks Like to HCA I decided to include symmetry as in my studies of real stones top symmetry can add to the apparent size, or poor symmetry usually results in smaller apparent size. So since we are asking for that info now (or capturing from GIA directly) as well as carat weight and dimensions - it is easy peasy to add a symmetry bonus / penalty.
It also said that my stone (which is a wee bit smaller than other 2.01-ct. RBs) is AVERAGE for "Looks like size"! It didn't say it was small for its size I was shocked (but pleasantly surprised).
It also said: "Should sparkle beautifully and looks the usual size for its carat weight."
I have to tell you all that I REALLY needed this little boost because I was getting a bit down because my depth is not PS-worthy and I was feeling I made another bad diamond choice. (With that said, I just saw on James Allen an AGS 0 in a 2.01-ct. that was also a 8.01mm... of course we don't have access to the specs anymore, but that tells me one thing: That stone, too, is a wee bit deeper cut than PS'ers want to see... and it is an AGS 0!
HAS ANYONE ELSE RUN THEIR DIAMOND'S NUMBERS IN THE NEW HCA?

 

[headlight]

I'm all for the bonus

 

[elizabethess]

My stone went from 2.1 to 2, I'll take that bonus, too

 

[Wewechew]

I thought the HCA has strictly been a pass or fail test. It didn’t matter if it scored a .2, or a 1.2, either way it was below 2, so it was worth a look.

Has that now changed?

 

[elizabethess]

I thought the HCA has strictly been a pass or fail test. It didn’t matter if it scored a .2, or a 1.2, either way it was below 2, so it was worth a look.

Has that now changed?

Right, a tool for exclusion. The only differentiation in numbers I am aware of is the lower (less than 1) scores are suggested possibly 'better' suited for earrings with above 1 'better' suited for ring. So, 1.7 to 1.6 not really better, but I'm glad for OP that the new 'looks like' feature happily reassured her she's hitting average! Now, going from above the threshold down to the upper limit is better, I'd say. (Though I am well aware I don't have a PS-standard stone and I was perfectly fine with the 2.1 I had before!)

What I did notice when I re-ran my numbers is the sentence: "If the HCA is less than 2.5, and you can see good Hearts and Arrows, it can be a nice diamond." Wondering if always said that and I just missed it, or if now 2 is fluffed up to 2.5? Maybe it's still 2 for Pricescope particularity, vs. what John Q. Public is ok with?

 

[psadmin]

I thought the HCA has strictly been a pass or fail test. It didn’t matter if it scored a .2, or a 1.2, either way it was below 2, so it was worth a look.

Has that now changed?

Nothing has changed in regards to how one should use it. We only adjusted /fine-tuned the score based on having more information.