Narrowing it down: Opinions Needed and Question

[jacobs]

I'm down to two diamonds. One is a very good diamond, and the other is also very good and is a Hearts & Arrows.

Diamond 1:
GIA Report:
Round Brilliant
Carat: 1.71
Color: G
Clarity: SI1
Cut: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: None
Table: 56%
Depth: 61.5%
Crown: 35.5
Pavilion: 40.6
HCA Score: 1.2 Excellent
1 inclusion which is a small crystal

Diamond 2: Hearts and Arrows
GIA Report
Round Brilliant
Carat: 1.72
Color: G
Clarity: VS2
Cut: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None
Table: 58%
Depth: 61.7%
Crown: 35
Pavilion: 41.2
HCA Score: 3.7

My question: Why does the H&A rate so poorly on the HCA score? They didn't have an idealscope, but I looked at it under something similar, it was a blue/black vs red/black. It looked like an H&A. The arrows were connected and the hearts well formed. They also said it was classified H&A by GIA. It looked brilliant when compared to other diamonds, but the HCA score is troubling. The H&A is about $1200 more than diamond number 1. Classify me confused.

 

[stone-cold11]

They are smoking you, GIA do not grade if a stone is H&A, it is only reporting what it find inscribe on the girdle of the stone.

What you are looking at is a H&A scope, not an idealscope, it only shows you the optical symm of the stone not the optical performance. Optical symm does not imply optical performance. A stone can have great optical symm but still have poor optical performance and vice versa. A true H&A will have both.

What are the respective lower half number? As it stands now, I prefer the first stone from the numbers.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 2/4/2010 7:28:15 PM
Author:jacobs

Diamond 2: Hearts and Arrows
GIA Report
Round Brilliant
Carat: 1.72
Color: G
Clarity: VS2
Cut: Excellent
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None
Table: 58%
Depth: 61.7%
Crown: 35
Pavilion: 41.2
HCA Score: 3.7

My question: Why does the H&A rate so poorly on the HCA score? They didn''t have an idealscope, but I looked at it under something similar, it was a blue/black vs red/black. It looked like an H&A. The arrows were connected and the hearts well formed. They also said it was classified H&A by GIA. It looked brilliant when compared to other diamonds, but the HCA score is troubling. The H&A is about $1200 more than diamond number 1. Classify me confused.

never heard of this.

 

[jacobs]

Which numbers are you reffering to? Not sure

 

[stone-cold11]

What is the GIA report number? I can look it up for you if you have that.

Or watch this video.
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/76/1/Video-Article-The-Parts-and-Facets-of-a-Diamond.aspx

 

[jacobs]

lower half is 43.5%

GIA 17158795

 

[stone-cold11]

No, that is not the number, that is the pavilion depth.

Lower half should be a number usually between 75-85%.

Only 1 GIA report number? Which is that for?

EDT:
Ok, For the 'H&A'. Likely to have some leakage, not the best stone, not worth the price as a H&A. There is not even an inscription saying it is H&A.

http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=17158795&weight=1.72

 

[jacobs]

Thank you. That is what my gut told me and they wanted 10% to 15% more to boot. I really appreciate your help. That''s why I''ve come here. It''s all very daunting trying to weed through all the numbers. Pricescope has really helped. Two weeks ago I would have jumped on that diamond and payed the mark up.

 

[stone-cold11]

Good luck.