Solasfera and the HCA

[ez-v]

Hi All,

New to this forum and have already learned SO much in just a few short weeks about diamonds! Can anyone (maybe even Gary?) comment as to whether or not the Holloway Cut Advisor works for stones with more than the standard number of facets? I was curious at some of the Solasfera stones that GOG had on their website and when I ran them under the cut advisor, they registered less than stellar numbers.

Given that Solasferas seem to do so well in the light return department, what is to explain their poor performance under the HCA? Is it:

A) The HCA model doesn''t apply well to stones with more than 57 facets due to the nature of the cuts?
B) The HCA does matter, but the light return in diamonds like the Solasfera is so high that even less than "excellent" diamonds perform brilliantly in the light return tests like the Brilliancescope?
C) something else?

Curious to know...

Also -- though I know this is more a personal preference issue -- for those of you who have seen the Solasfera and other high-facet cut stones, did you think the supposedly better light performance was worth the premium over already premium H&As like that offered by SuperbCert and Whiteflash? If it helps, I''m probably looking at a stone in the .80 ct. range.

Thanks in advance!
Vic

 

[strmrdr]

A mostly...
post the numbers the ones I ran in the past were between 1 and 2 right in the hca sweet spot......

 

[strmrdr]

ok just looked and saw whats going on the wrong profile is being used for the helium and sarin scans they are smoking dope off.
Every one I found with a helium scan attached the scan was off and the sarin models were trash.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 5/31/2007 2:56:55 AM
Author:ez-v
Hi All,


New to this forum and have already learned SO much in just a few short weeks about diamonds! Can anyone (maybe even Gary?) comment as to whether or not the Holloway Cut Advisor works for stones with more than the standard number of facets? I was curious at some of the Solasfera stones that GOG had on their website and when I ran them under the cut advisor, they registered less than stellar numbers.


Given that Solasferas seem to do so well in the light return department, what is to explain their poor performance under the HCA? Is it:


A) The HCA model doesn''t apply well to stones with more than 57 facets due to the nature of the cuts?

B) The HCA does matter, but the light return in diamonds like the Solasfera is so high that even less than ''excellent'' diamonds perform brilliantly in the light return tests like the Brilliancescope?

C) something else?


Curious to know...


Also -- though I know this is more a personal preference issue -- for those of you who have seen the Solasfera and other high-facet cut stones, did you think the supposedly better light performance was worth the premium over already premium H&As like that offered by SuperbCert and Whiteflash? If it helps, I''m probably looking at a stone in the .80 ct. range.


Thanks in advance!

Vic

We all just addressed this in another thread for someone a few days ago. The OVERWHELMING response from us (especially the women) is that not only do we all prefer the look of the regular ideal cut, but none of us would spend extra $ to get any of the modified cuts. I don''t think that it actually returns more light at all, it''s just SPLINTERED light, so there are more smaller pinfire flashes, but fewer big broad flashes, which isn''t a look many of us covet.

Especially if your budget is for a .8, I would not recommend that you pay the premium. All you''re getting is a "different" look NOT a "better" performing stone.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/31/2007 10:01:30 AM
Author: neatfreak


We all just addressed this in another thread for someone a few days ago. The OVERWHELMING response from us (especially the women) is that not only do we all prefer the look of the regular ideal cut, but none of us would spend extra $ to get any of the modified cuts. I don''t think that it actually returns more light at all, it''s just SPLINTERED light, so there are more smaller pinfire flashes, but fewer big broad flashes, which isn''t a look many of us covet.

Especially if your budget is for a .8, I would not recommend that you pay the premium. All you''re getting is a ''different'' look NOT a ''better'' performing stone.

I wouldn''t go that far there are people who love the look of the extra facet stones when they have seen them in person compared to h&a RB''s, there is a place for them in the market.
Same thing with the RA vs other asschers.
As far as performance there are very few stones that match the light return of the solasfera.
They were designed from the ground up too be super bright then to break that brightness up with more facets.
A standard RB cut in that style is rather boring but by breaking it up into smaller chunks it gives it a distinct look that some people love.
Id take one over an 8* any day of the week and 3 times on sunday.
Compared to GOG classics my pick would be the classic in the smaller sizes but that doesnt mean they arent the right stone for someone else.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 5/31/2007 11:07:03 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/31/2007 10:01:30 AM

Author: neatfreak



We all just addressed this in another thread for someone a few days ago. The OVERWHELMING response from us (especially the women) is that not only do we all prefer the look of the regular ideal cut, but none of us would spend extra $ to get any of the modified cuts. I don''t think that it actually returns more light at all, it''s just SPLINTERED light, so there are more smaller pinfire flashes, but fewer big broad flashes, which isn''t a look many of us covet.


Especially if your budget is for a .8, I would not recommend that you pay the premium. All you''re getting is a ''different'' look NOT a ''better'' performing stone.

I wouldn''t go that far there are people who love the look of the extra facet stones when they have seen them in person compared to h&a RB''s, there is a place for them in the market.

Same thing with the RA vs other asschers.

As far as performance there are very few stones that match the light return of the solasfera.

They were designed from the ground up too be super bright then to break that brightness up with more facets.

A standard RB cut in that style is rather boring but by breaking it up into smaller chunks it gives it a distinct look that some people love.

Id take one over an 8* any day of the week and 3 times on sunday.

Compared to GOG classics my pick would be the classic in the smaller sizes but that doesnt mean they arent the right stone for someone else.

I don''t disagree that some people love the look of it, but the OP asked our opinions and the overwhelming response of the women on this board just a few days ago was that we''d prefer a regular ideal cut in a slightly bigger size for the $.

It''s a distinct look, so I would only get it if the woman loves the cut.

 

[Regular Guy]

Two thoughts...

a) Neatfreak, the men on this board are already a minority. Are you trying imply with your language about a helpful differentiation about the way men & women perceive performance?

Just checking

b) Storm, any background for this...

Date: 5/31/2007 5:10:57 AM
Author: strmrdr
ok just looked and saw whats going on the wrong profile is being used for the helium and sarin scans they are smoking dope off.
Every one I found with a helium scan attached the scan was off and the sarin models were trash.

will you tell Jonathan? How bad do you think is the data? Any guess how frequently it would be off? Do these particular options come with certs to help gauge against?

Usually, we tend to hear only good things about high quality sarin and especially Helium.

 

[neatfreak]

Lol Regular Guy, that is EXACTLY what I''m trying to explain.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/31/2007 11:29:45 AM
Author: Regular Guy
Two thoughts...

a) Neatfreak, the men on this board are already a minority. Are you trying imply with your language about a helpful differentiation about the way men & women perceive performance?

Just checking

b) Storm, any background for this...

Date: 5/31/2007 5:10:57 AM
Author: strmrdr
ok just looked and saw whats going on the wrong profile is being used for the helium and sarin scans they are smoking dope off.
Every one I found with a helium scan attached the scan was off and the sarin models were trash.

will you tell Jonathan? How bad do you think is the data? Any guess how frequently it would be off? Do these particular options come with certs to help gauge against?

Usually, we tend to hear only good things about high quality sarin and especially Helium.

they are looking into it....
Some of the helium scans were showing 5 degree crown variation which just isnt happening.
While the sarin scan models were off with missed facet meet points but reasonable spread on the crowns and huge variations on the pavilion.
It just don''t line up with each other and with the images.
The sarin and a lesser extent the helium scanner need profiles to match facet placement against to get the best results if they are off then the entire scan is off.
Helium can do a decent job with no profile but if a profile is used the accuracy is better and if a bad one is used all bets are off on accuracy.
Sarin requires the profile for each cut.

 

[Regular Guy]

lol



I don''t get it.

Date: 5/31/2007 11:49:14 AM
Author: neatfreak
Lol Regular Guy, that is EXACTLY what I''m trying to explain.

why

 

[ez-v]

Strmrdr,

That''s an interesting comment about the reports not being accurate. I would think that GOG is so good about posting a lot of information about their stones that what they post would be accurate. The numbers I ran were:

From the Megascope:

TOTAL DEPTH PERCENTAGE 61.5%
PAVILION ANGLE 41.1°
PAVILION DEPTH PERCENTAGE 43.6%
TABLE SIZE PERCENTAGE 53.8%
CROWN HEIGHT PERCENTAGE 15.7%
GIRDLE THICKNESS 1.9-2.4%
CROWN ANGLE 33.8°
CULET 0.4%

The HCA results were:
Light Return: Good
Fire: Good
Scintillation: Good
Spread: Very Good
Total Visual Performance 4.3 - Good - Only if price is your main criterion

From the Helium Report

TOTAL DEPTH PERCENTAGE 61.9%
PAVILION ANGLE 41.71°
PAVILION DEPTH PERCENTAGE 43.9%
TABLE SIZE PERCENTAGE 53.1%
CROWN HEIGHT PERCENTAGE 15.7%
GIRDLE THICKNESS 3%
CROWN ANGLE 37.41°
CULET 0.3%

The HCA results were:

Light Return: Good
Fire: Good
Scintillation: Good
Spread: Very Good
Total Visual Performance 4.1 - Good - Only if price is your main criterion

Not exactly what you would expect given the reputation of the Solasfera which prompted my original question about the applicability of the HCA to these high-facet-count stones. I understand that the HCA should not be the only tool used to judge a diamond... nonetheless, it helps if all the tools and data corroborate one another.

Neatfreak,

It''s interesting that most PriceScopers seem to prefer the standard cuts over some of the >57 cuts now available despite the fact that stones like the Solasfera should have the light performance traits that discriminating diamond buyers would covet. I guess as mentioned in other posts, that''s why some people buy princesses, others buy ovals, some people by H&As, and what not... it really is about personal preference.

Not that I was going to buy a diamond sight unseen, but this reinforces the fact that I should definitely visually compare the Solasfera to a traditional H & A because maybe I (or I guess more importantly, my girlfriend) would prefer that look regardless of what all the Brilliancescope and other technical data say we SHOULD prefer!

Still be interested to see what are the true measurements of the stone in question and if the HCA is more or less effective in weeding out well-cut vs. less-well cut stones with more than the standard number of facets.

Vic

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/31/2007 1:51:19 PM
Author: ez-v

Strmrdr,

That''s an interesting comment about the reports not being accurate. I would think that GOG is so good about posting a lot of information about their stones that what they post would be accurate. The numbers I ran were:

They generaly are but they are human and once in a while something wierd happens.
It happens with any vendor from time to time.
It might be as simple as an update to the software messed things up.
It happens....

 

[neatfreak]

ez-v- YES that is EXACTLY what you should do. They really do look quite different, so make sure your GF loves it before you go purchasing one. Also, you would be able to afford a bigger ideal cut round, and many women would go size over "fancy" cut any day.

Regular Guy- Let''s just say that most men think "performance" when they think diamonds (or any purchase really) and most women think "pretty!", so I think that''s why more men are drawn towards the modified cuts than women because they think they "perform" better. Whereas many women would just want an ideal cut stone in a bigger size instead of a better "performer". It''s like why women would prefer a cute Jetta over a 6cylinder fast but ugly car.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/31/2007 2:57:18 PM
Author: neatfreak
ez-v- YES that is EXACTLY what you should do. They really do look quite different, so make sure your GF loves it before you go purchasing one. Also, you would be able to afford a bigger ideal cut round, and many women would go size over 'fancy' cut any day.

Regular Guy- Let's just say that most men think 'performance' when they think diamonds (or any purchase really) and most women think 'pretty!', so I think that's why more men are drawn towards the modified cuts than women because they think they 'perform' better. Whereas many women would just want an ideal cut stone in a bigger size instead of a better 'performer'. It's like why women would prefer a cute Jetta over a 6cylinder fast but ugly car.

nope
If men did all the chosen almost all diamonds would be RBs(99%+), id bet more than a few greenbacks that women are behind(said that's what she wants or bought it herself) 95+% of all none RB purchases if someone wanted to study it.