SuperbCert and HCA numbers not matching

[eaperk]

I have been looking online at diamonds recently and had decided to look at the SuperbCert but the numbers on the site are not matching up. I am new to this but I believe I remember reading that Megascope/Sarin numbers vary slightly from the cert so that did not worry me too much. However when I clicked on a stone that had a link to the HCA none of the numbers were matching, that worries me. Maybe you guys can tell me If I am doing something wrong.

#1665 .53,E,VS1
D% T% C'' P'' C
GIA 60.9 55
MS 61 54.7 34.5 40.9 .7
HCA 61 56 34.5 40.7 0

#1662 .50,F,VS2

GIA 61 56
MS 60.6 55.4 34.5 40.8 1.0
HCA 61 56 34.5 40.7 0

#1182 .57,D,VS2

GIA 60.9 55
MS 60.8 54.8 34.4 40.7 .4
HCA 60.9 55 34.4 40.7 .9

#1207 .58,F,IF

GIA 61.2 55
MS 60.7 56.2 34.1 40.7 .7
HCA 61.2 55 34.2 40.8 .9

 

[eaperk]

I stopped after the first 4 being off. I think you should check my numbers beacuse Im new at this but I believe I am correct. The reason I am concerned is because I was thinking about buying a diamond from them but if there is no consistancy in the numbers how am I supposed to trust that the H&A and Idealscope images match the stones?

thanks, Eric

 

[eaperk]

OK I guess Im the only one who thinks this is weird?

#1665
The HCA link = .9
MS numbers = 1.5

#1662
The HCA link = .9
MS numbers = 1.1

#1182
The HCA link = .9
MS numbers = .9

#1207
The HCA link = 1.1
MS numbers = .8

If you purchased 1165 or 1162 based on the HCA numbers in the product description and didnt read the fine print you might be pretty upset later.

 

[cowboystu]

I had noticed that as well. It seems that they often misform the link that goes straight to HCA. This is one reason that I choose to always plug the numbers in by hand...takes a bit more time, but makes sure that there is no error (except your own). I also plug in both sets of numbers (MS and cert) if available just to see what the worst HCA could be.

I do not know if you should jump to the conclusion that it was intentional...after doing a lot of web design, I know it is difficult to always get everything right unless it is database driven (though the accuracy of the DB could still be an issue). If they are hand-creating the links for every diamond, mistakes are very likely to happen.

Take care, and double check info...

Stu

 

[okaynow]

could this be due to the recent change in the HCA parameters?

 

[eaperk]

I was not trying to infer it was intentional just misleading. I just feel like when you have to depend on the validity of the information presented to you as accurate, finding out something like this makes you doubt the accuracy of all the information. Since you cannot actually see first hand the items you are buying on the internet, there is a level of trust that must be cultured. Things like this destroy that.

Am I way off base here? I guess I shouldnt worry about things like this. I just have a tight budget and Im starting a family soon so I cant mess around with my money.

 

[cowboystu]

I hear you...

This is how I see it:
The link from the SuperbCert website looks like this for stone #1665
http://search.virtcert.com/cgi/u/1045/hca.cgi?_log=1005&_url=http://www.hollowaycutadviser.com/hca.asp?depth=60.9&table=55&crown=34.5&pavilion=&culet=0.9

As you can see, they pass
depth=60.9
table=55
crown=34.5
pavilion=
culet=0.9

The results from the MS are:
depth=61.0
table=54.7
crown=34.5
pavilion=40.9
culet=0.7

And for final comparison, the cert says:
depth=60.9
table=55
crown=(GIA CERT, N/A)
pavilion=(GIA CERT, N/A)
culet=NONE

So it looks as if they use the cert numbers for the depth and the table, the crown from the MS, and somehow leave off the pavilion.

Not that this solves anything, but i thought it was interesting. Maybe Barry can tell us if they use a DB to pull this data, or how the link is formed...

Stu

 

[okaynow]

it is a very valid concern. Accuracy in any information is very important, you are by no means, "way off base".

 

[Mara]

I too have noticed this before. I decided that it was a mishap on their part and just plugged in the numbers manually every time. Also it could be that they are not actually entering #'s from the HCA into there but rather taking the programming from the site or similar and it is just plugging in #'s as a 'test' stone?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I thought before i left for overseas that we had fixed this with Barry.
He is accessing the new HCA.
I do not know why there is different data - I suspect that different Ogi scans have been used? One from time of cutting and or buying and another entered on the website at a later time?

Barry?

I am travelling and have poor ISP access. i am getting few emails.

 

[barry]

The HCA script calls for inputting Table and Depth %
from the GIA Certificate. These numbers are rounded
off to the next highest number by the GIA graders.
Table and Depth % from the MegaScope
are not rounded off and using them will result
in a slightly different but insignificant difference
in the HCA score as all of our SuperbCerts
score in the 0-2 (Excellent) range.

CowboyStu, your observation is correct.
The script uses data that has been hand-entered
into the target database. The entries are proofed
for accuracy. However, in view of the fact that many
consumers such as yourself are also entering
the Table and Depth data from our
MegaScope through the PriceScope
page, which results in a very slightly different number,
we have decided to suspend the
HCA link from our SuperbCert website in order
to eliminate consumer confusion.

By all means enter data from both our Cert
and our MegaScope
to get an HCA range and go with the the number that
makes you most comfortable.

Barry
www.superbcert.com

 

[pricescope]

Cowboystu, in the link you posted the pavilion angle is missing hence HCA cannot be calculated at all.

I also noticed that

1. Some Sc stones don't have pavilion angles - no HCA could be generated.

2. Crown and pavilion angles are different from OGI reports. Most critical are the pavilion angles: 40.7, 40.8 and 40.9 degrees will give you noticeably different scores.