Thoughts on 2 Stones/HCA Ratings

[indy2k]

Hi there,

This forum has helped me a ton as I search out the proper stone for an e-ring... So thanks so much for that in advance!

I wanted to get everyone's thoughts on 2 different stones.

The first is at a local jeweler and to my inexperienced eye, appears to be very good (it's a G/VS1/Excellent cut). Here is a link to the GIA report:
http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/ind...ortVerification&reportno=15169663&weight=2.11
However, it's HCA Rating comes out to 3.3.

At the exact same pricepoint is a Hearts & Arrows 2.04ct Stone that's a G/VS2 an AGS 0 cut rating. It's HCA rating is an amazing 1.0.

I'm quite torn between the two. After some exhaustive research, both are priced very fairly, but obviously I want to make the right investment. Hearts and Arrows is not something that she specifically needs or wants, but certainly is a "bonus". Not seeing the HnA stone certainly is a factor, but it's not a dealbreaker...

Any thoughts? Is the HnA factor + the better HCA rating something that could help the stone from a value perspective down the road? Both are beautiful, it's simply a matter of which one get's selected...

Thanks in advance!

 

[stone-cold11]

HCA is a rejection tool not a selection tool.

Could work as GIA rounded the numbers significantly.

Optical performance between these 2 might not be significant, if the symm is there but just not sold as a H&A, the rounding is not favourable on the GIA report, etc. Best to compare the 2 stones side by side in many different lighting conditions if possible.

Regarding investment, diamonds are not an investment, once you bought it price drop by about 50%. Best way to get back the value is if the store has a buyback policy but that is assuming the store is still around when you need it.

 

[indy2k]

Great point on the buyback/investment front...

What do you mean when you say GIA rounded the numbers?

Also, agree on the rejection tool front - trying to figure out if 3.3 is "rejection territory".

Thanks again!

 

[stone-cold11]

Great point on the buyback/investment front...

What do you mean when you say GIA rounded the numbers?

Also, agree on the rejection tool front - trying to figure out if 3.3 is "rejection territory".

Thanks again!

GIA numbers, except for the depth, are averaged from 8 measurements then rounded for the 3 other inputs into the HCA. For the table, in 1% increment, for the crown angle in 0.5 degrees increment and pavilion angles in 0.2 degrees increment.

A largish lower half, average from 16 facets in increments of 5%, will mitigate light leakage for stones with HCA scores higher than 2, I have seen good idealscope image, no leakage, for scores up to 3.5.

So depends on your risk tolerance. Maybe buy yourself an idealscope and learn how to use it? Not that expensive considering what you are paying for the stone.