My diamond shopping experience (how Pricescope/HCA saved me)

[shinez]

Background: I consider myself an educated and pretty savvy person, but had virtually no previous knowledge of diamonds when it came to engagement ring shopping. I did not care at all about jewelry, and honestly never really looked at people's rings or diamonds other than the most superficial of "oh you are married" if they were wearing any sort of ring.

Initial diamond purchase: Did what I considered above average amount of research. Almost everywhere used GIA grading filters. Thought I found the perfect diamond. GIA triple excellent, great color/clarity, no fluorescence. Wired the money over to my jeweler.

About a week or two later, was just doing a bit more looking around, waiting for my diamond to come in and ring to be prepared. Somehow on youtube stumbled onto a video that mentioned HCA. Expected my HCA score to be great based on the cut I selected. Came back at 2.6...

Now 2.6 is not bad, but being the OCD person I am did more investigation as it said reject scores greater than 2. Research on HCA leads to Pricescope. Some further research and reading, realized I purchased a steep/deep.

Giving my stone the benefit of the doubt - it was just borderline - it had just arrived to my jeweler around this time. Asked for further images, and received the H&A images and ASET. And of course just my luck, significant light leak below the table. Jeweler said the stone looked great, said "I even had a partner look at the ASET and they do not see anything wrong". However, even as an "amateur" there was clearly significant light leak. My jeweler was a nice guy though, he already had my setting ready and my money, so I decided to stick with him and just have him get me another stone (I do not say that to make the vendors here cringe, there are just timeline and financial variables that also had to be taken into consideration).

At this point I had gained enough knowledge about percents and angles to know what to look for, and found another great stone graded by GIA, with some improvements on the cut numbers...plugged them into HCA...0.8. Perfect. Got in touch with my jeweler, he sent me the H&A and ASET...huge improvement!


I may not have known anything was wrong with my original stone, but I am so much more satisfied with my purchase knowing that I did not fall for the steep/deep cut. The new stone I picked is a little smaller carat weight and a little more cost, but a much better cut and the face up diameter is identical.

I just wanted to thank you all, and HCA creator Garry Holloway.

You may have cost me a few thousand more dollars but saved me from making a mistake for the quality of diamond I was looking to purchase. It was not about the cost for me, but for purchasing a perfect diamond for my lady, it is a one time purchase and a big investment, and the information here helped me get it right.

 

[Matthews1127]

Shinez,
So glad you were able to catch everything in time, and replace your stone in your desired time-frame! PS is an extremely helpful resource!
I must warn you: your "one time purchase" will turn into "several purchases"; she will get the fever...this is just the beginning...lol!!
It's like potato chips...you can't have "just one"; "just one" turns into "just one more", and then, "Honey! My girls need friends!"
Congratulations!! I'm so happy for you! Please post photos and hand shots, after you pop the question!!
CRM

 

[Rockdiamond]

Cool story. What does a significant light leak look like to your eye?

 

[WinkHPD]

Rock,

From the OP's account I am not sure he ever saw the original diamond. From his account of not having ever cared about diamonds or jewelry before, it is unlikely that he yet has the visual palate to know significant leakage when he sees it.

Yet after some time of his fiance/wife wearing a diamond that is more sparkly, he will develop the visual palate to know when a diamond looks better than another, even if he does not know why.

My compliments to the OP for taking the time to do some research and for finding a stone that in his mind is a better diamond than the one he started with. I am pretty sure that he made a good choice in doing so, but neither you or I can know for sure since neither of us got to see the diamond with our eyes.

He has already stated that he is much more comfortable and satisfied with his purchase. That is what is important here.

Wink

 

[valeria101]

Let half a joke:

.... it is unlikely that he yet has the visual palate to know significant leakage when he sees it.

Who does !

That is to say, that kind of beauty shows up in wallnut-size objects - the diamonds famous as 'pools of light'; then again, what have they done with the 'Fountain of Light' ...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Wink
I'm also glad the consumer is satisfied.
I think identitying what people are being warned of is important.
Your assumption that over time the stone that was rejected would sparkle less has no basis in fact. You might be right- but we dont have enough data to know why. That's part of why I ask.
If people are being warned to avoid a diamond based on inaccurate info that does not help consumers.
Let's face it- a smart seller would simply do what the consumer asks. Point of sale is not the time to educate or dispute the belief of a buyer. But this forum is the place to examine claims.
So if it's a common size the seller can just pick using HCA.
But there are cases where it's a legitimately better choice selecting a stone with a worse HCA. Aside from cases of harder to find sizes and color/clarity combos.
I'm sure we all agree that the stone that was rejected would likely not show leakage under the table. If it was perceivable at all.
It might not have been the best stone for the OP. But I'd like to find out what the OP saw so we can know more.

 

[valeria101]

Counting two questions:

How much leakage is visible by comparison ? [as opposed to ID by 'palate' - or experience of such choices, lived or otherwise]

Then, what is it worth ...


[note to self]

 

[Rockdiamond]

shinez
In the interest of furthering your studies:
The HCA is not a ranking tool. That is to say: a .8 is not "better" than a 2.
You mentioned that the new stone cost a little more, weighed a little less and had better spread.
Then you mentioned thousands of dollars more. Was there a difference in the thousands?

 

[msop04]

shinez
In the interest of furthering your studies:
The HCA is not a ranking tool. That is to say: a .8 is not "better" than a 2.
You mentioned that the new stone cost a little more, weighed a little less and had better spread.
Then you mentioned thousands of dollars more. Was there a difference in the thousands?

I'm curious too... did he change to a well cut 60/60, perhaps? If the diamond was large enough, it wouldn't be crazy to have spent a few thousand more.

 

[OoohShiny]

I think this thread needs pictures lol


@shinez - did the jeweller(s) make any comment as to any differences they observed between the two stones?

 

[WinkHPD]

Now 2.6 is not bad, but being the OCD person I am did more investigation as it said reject scores greater than 2. Research on HCA leads to Pricescope. Some further research and reading, realized I purchased a steep/deep... (snip) ...At this point I had gained enough knowledge about percents and angles to know what to look for, and found another great stone graded by GIA, with some improvements on the cut numbers...plugged them into HCA...0.8. Perfect. Got in touch with my jeweler, he sent me the H&A and ASET...huge improvement!... (Snip) ... I just wanted to thank you all, and HCA creator Garry Holloway.

Shinez, these points above are wonderful. Yours is an enjoyable story with good research on your part, and a terrific willingness by your jeweler to accommodate your desire to improve the diamond’s basic proportions for increased light return. Congratulations. As someone who has posted here for nearly 20 years it’s wonderful to see this knowledge base benefitting consumers like you.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Hi Wink
I'm also glad the consumer is satisfied.
I think identitying what people are being warned of is important.
Your assumption that over time the stone that was rejected would sparkle less has no basis in fact.

Rock, how can a diamond sparkle less over time? Cut details determine character and quality of the optical qualities. If you keep your diamonds clean, they will not “sparkle less over time.”

Wink

 

[Rockdiamond]

Wink- do you understand how HCA works?

As someone with as much time here as you, it's important to make sure the tools are being properly used.
Are you not curious to the point of spending thousands more?

About sparkle- you mentioned, "over time". But maybe I read that wrong.
The point still stands- you have zero idea of the specifics of the two stones ( unless you have some inside knowledge of the particulars here), therefore any statement made comparing the two stones is simply a shot in the dark. We have no idea about "increased light return" as you put it.

 

[WinkHPD]

Wink- do you understand how HCA works?

As someone with as much time here as you, it's important to make sure the tools are being properly used.
Are you not curious to the point of spending thousands more?

About sparkle- you mentioned, "over time". But maybe I read that wrong.
The point still stands- you have zero idea of the specifics of the two stones ( unless you have some inside knowledge of the particulars here), therefore any statement made comparing the two stones is simply a shot in the dark. We have no idea about "increased light return" as you put it.

Wow. I did not mean to upset you.

Yes, I understand how the HCA works. That’s why I’m surprised that you would say any statements would be a shot in the dark. Not only did we have the HCA scores, Shinez also verified that the H&A and ASET image his jeweler sent was a huge improvement.

These things work together.

I don’t want to upset you again, as I know you’re not an HCA fan, but do you know how it works Rock?

Wink

 

[Rockdiamond]

LOL- it takes quite a bit more than this to "upset me"
But when I see unrealistic claims made by a jeweler, I do find it to be a mark on all of us honest jewelers. Pretending we know anything about the specific light performance either of these stones based only an an HCA score and a jewelers comments is misleading.
Agreeing that the leakage is automatically an issue in a GIA EX scoring 2.6HCA is misleading to readers.
Using HCA as a ranking tool, instead of a rejection tool is misleading. Also, I AM a fan of Garry's work. That does not mean we should not discuss it, or look at it with critical eyes- but the HCA is genius.
When it looks like someone is being misled, yes, I would like to correct it.
shinez- who has only posted one time wrote some things that show they were either mislead, or possibly are making assumptions that could have cost them $1000's of dollars needlesly.
And as I've also pointed out- your signature line is incorrect.
But not upset my friend

 

[WinkHPD]

LOL- it takes quite a bit more than this to "upset me"
But when I see unrealistic claims made by a jeweler, I do find it to be a mark on all of us honest jewelers. Pretending we know anything about the specific light performance either of these stones based only an an HCA score and a jewelers comments is misleading.
Agreeing that the leakage is automatically an issue in a GIA EX scoring 2.6HCA is misleading to readers.
Using HCA as a ranking tool, instead of a rejection tool is misleading. Also, I AM a fan of Garry's work. That does not mean we should not discuss it, or look at it with critical eyes- but the HCA is genius.
When it looks like someone is being misled, yes, I would like to correct it.
shinez- who has only posted one time wrote some things that show they were either mislead, or possibly are making assumptions that could have cost them $1000's of dollars needlesly.
And as I've also pointed out- your signature line is incorrect.
But not upset my friend

Rock, I am glad it only sounded that way!

As for HCA, yes it is genius. And yes, I properly used it for rejection.

That diamond with 2.6 was rejected (just as the HCA cites) because the associated proportions set will simply not return as much light to the viewer’s eyes as the geometrical proportions set that score under 2.0. The rubric is based on physical diamond properties, proportions and critical angles. Denying critical angle dynamics is like denying that gravity exists. In that sense, if you’re saying HCA is unreliable in this application, where the ASET was also confirmed to be better, you are the one misleading others. I encourage you to research the HCA.

Also, I did not see any unrealistic claims made by his jeweler. Everything shinez reported was logical and makes sense.

Wink

 

[Niel]

I think rockdiamond asked his original question to further his agenda of promoting the type of stones he sells. I think it's unprofessional to threadjack this happy consumer to push your opinions under the pretence of "helping further readers".

You have an agenda you like to push.
"The standard opinion on pricescope about what 'makes a diamond beautiful' is misguided."

I'm sure you could start your own thread to talk about that for the umpteenth time.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Niel,
I see a thread, not in SMBT, but here which raises questions- did the op spend thousands more?
We're both longtime participants.
If you don't want to participate that's of course your right.

Based on the op's post - as well as the current 60/60 thread, which I did not start, there is interest.
All the best

 

[Niel]

David,
I'm happy to comment on this post actually, as it was one consumer telling us of his personal experience. You chime in explaining " identitying what people are being warned of is important. " Is superfluous as the original poster made no warnings. You then ask" Was there a difference in the thousands?". As a vendor rather than a regular ps poster, you may not realize that it's really quite rude to question someone's purchase after they are glowing about how happy the purchase made them. And again, that's really all this post was doing.

You took it upon yourself to turn this happy "thanks ps" thread into a self serving discussion about why the non HCA ideal diamonds are actually good buys too. To the people who have "been around a while" its quite obvious you don't like to see people who strive for negligible diamond superiority. That's fine. Leave it off threads like this, please.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Niel- all due respect, your attacks are uncalled for. If there's rules being broken by all means report them.
But aside from that we are all free to post our ideas.

 

[Niel]

David,
With all due respect my statement about your behavior is perfectly warranted.

 

[Karl_K]

Shinez,
First welcome to PS and the world of diamonds.
You did good.
You educated yourself, used the available tools and made a purchase your comfortable with making.
You being comfortable with your purchase is far more important than some bickering about different philosophies.
Ignore the drama and we would love to see some pictures of the completed ring.

 

[Rockdiamond]

It's super great that op made a purchase he's happy with. No one disputes that.
I asked a simple question. What was the look of the leakage? It's others who are creating dissent.
The op came here to discuss the experience- self described OCD. I get that. If they are interested in learning as they indicated they are, exploring the claims they based the purchase on are important.

 

[Niel]

He's it's everyone else David. You're just the victim again.

OP sorry I'll make no more comments about other posts on this thread. Do you have photos of your ring if love to see!

 

[Diamond_Hawk]

What a great story - If you have final pictures, I too would love to see them.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I commend the OP for his research and proper use of the available tools to get a forever diamond that he is thrilled with. I also commend his jeweler for working through the challenges, providing light performance images, and addressing the customer's needs in a competent and thorough way. There are some great brick and mortar jewelers out there and they deserve to be recognized and supported.