What information is a) necessary and b) sufficient to shop for a diamond?

[Regular Guy]

I'll blame it on Jonathan at GOG.

Why I think about these things, I don't really know for sure, but since I do, my evaluative world just tilted a bit in the last day or two, when GOG listed their in-house diamonds on the search by cut database (sbc) here. I could be wrong...but maybe it tilted for the guys who run Pricescope, too. If you'll notice, recently, not only did GOG add it's in house offerings, but around the same time, on the same database, the default screen comes up with a new range...not "excellent to excellent," but now "excellent to very good."

So...this thought is in 3 parts:

The idea
The protocol
Appraisers

The idea

This post could have been called instead: Which one trumps...HCA or Brilliancescope? But, then I saw there could be a more helpful, general application.

Over the last few weeks, when people came into Pricescope looking for suggestions, I'll frequently see them from Ana, and others that I'll regard as odd...they aren't ones I see on the sbc database, so they're not between 0 - 2 on the HCA, and I'm like...why did they recommend them anyway? Maybe because they're trusted vendors?

Most recently, yesterday even, this post came in where Adam was looking for some suggestions, I saw at this time that GOG now has their in-house options on the sbc database, and by gum, and I'm seeing that one of the selected options ranks 2.5 on the HCA. I figure to eliminate it, out of the box. But several comments follow mine, they say all choices look primo, and darn if Adam doesn't go for that one at the end of the day, regardless of the lower score. Later, looking further, darn if I don't happen to notice that between the two options on GOG, for the one that ranks 2.5, even though that score is clearly not as good as the other option from GOG scoring "excellent (1.2 on the HCA), its Brilliancescope score is better. (And by the way, I probably wouldn't have even recognized this ultimately "winning" option on GOG, if the default setting on the sbc database hadn't been changed, to include very good as part of the constraints in the search).

The Protocol

So...here's the recommended protocol....

When shopping for diamonds, you need to get two cut systems/experts to agree on the goodness and/or the superiority of the diamond.

So, where's the news here? Garry has said a version of this repeatedly, classically, recently represented here.

I guess what's new for me are a couple of things.

1) VG is Ok on the HCA. Is good OK too? Until I see a selected option that is good or lower, I doubt it, but really I have no idea. Still, for now, based on the HCA system, alone, VG is not excellent (0-2), and would represent a point against your selection, unless you get two other systems to agree.

2) An expert can be one of your two. You find a strone that is VG on the HCA, but better on the Brilliancescope than the one that ranks excellent. Which one do you pick? For my money...you ask your expert vendor. He has them both, he probably doesn't care very much which of the two you buy. Ask him which one he thinks is better? So...you triangulate that way, and decide with your two inputs (expert, plus one cut ranking system) which is better. You're OK, probably, right?

3) Drop shipping doesn't make a lot of sense. This is true because your vendor, who could have been a meaningful expert...looking at in-house options in comparison to the one you have your eye on...is not even going to see your diamond, which also likely doesn't have cut data associated with it. Even if it did, like the constraints the HCA has...since sarin proportion data alone -- its established -- is not sufficient for a decision -- and importantly....since you're likely not buying from your cousin, but you have a universe of options available to you...you really want to know how this diamond will somewhat relatively compare to another one or set of options you could also reasonably select from. And so, as a result, you have to decide what benefit you will seek from your appraiser.

The appraiser

There's the well established saying...

Where there's a will....there's relatives

but then there's the corollary...

Where's there's relatives...an appraiser won't be able to help too much.

Although an appraiser can be helpful in an absolute way...he/she can tell you the diamond is real, it is good even...they will be challenged to tell you that you've optimized, among and between the relative options available to you.

For this reason, I think an appraiser will fall into a gray area for this protocol. Certainly, if they can provide a complement of cut appraising apparatus, that will only provide benefit. But...I think it's an old story now on this board about constraints with respect to an appraiser's ability to help you shop. It seems as though that, once you've shopped, they can tell you whether the choice is reasonable. But...having a drop shipped diamond sent to an appraiser...it seems of little benefit if the outcome you're looking for is a better understanding of whether to make a purchase decision or not (unless you send them two or more you're considering between, which is different), since you will generally have a lot of options to choose among.

Seem reasonable?

 

[Lord Summerisle]

you lost me at

''I Blame...''

 

[Kaleigh]

Have no idea what he is saying!!!

 

[Regular Guy]

To the Lord,

For Adam, why didn''t you see a bad one, among his options. Did you see one of them scored below excellent on the HCA. You took the time to respond to him. Are you clear the Brilliancescope trumps HCA, or why were you unambivalent in making your comment?

 

[Kaleigh]

Ira,
Are you ok?

 

[oldminer]

]It is easy to buy a great diamond provided you have enough money prepared and have an honest, and competitive seller ready to work with you. A vendor who uses correct and precise terminology in describing the cut quality of the diamonds being offered is very useful. Of all the things one might hope for, honesty, real knowledge and a willingness to share information would be those things I believe are crucial.

Of course, everyone ought to utilize an appraiser!!!!

Really, we want to help those who feel they need us. If it is a way of gaining more information, hand holding, advice, etc, then there are some of us who want to help you. Obviously, the majority of buyers are way more impulsive and don''t want help and many of them do just fine. However, we can assist those who want or need help through the maze of advisors and stones being offered.

Which strategy of diamond cut grading works best? This is still up for grabs. A diamond which rates high will look great in any system. Which diamond is exactly "the best" remains undefined and probably your eyes can''t really tell #1 from #2 quality anyway. The pursuit of perfection is part of human nature, so don''t get worked up over it. Enjoy the shopping and remember the purpose of a gift is to show your love and to give pleasure to your partner. Losing sight of the real meaning of such a long lasting gift makes it much more difficult to enjoy the process.

 

[strmrdr]

Which one trumps...HCA or Brilliancescope? - neither.
Both are but one part of the puzzle.
The hca while a good thing only works on a a limited dataset.
The b-scope while good only measures under limited light conditions and only tells you that their machine considers it a good one if you read only the scores.

Using any one piece of the puzzle to select a diamond is a mistake.
The hca at its best is a good tool to narrow the field down.
But if everything else looked good but the hca was 2.5 id buy it.

To be honest I dont even bother running the hca on GOG's diamonds there is enough other information to make it irrelevant.

 

[Regular Guy]

Storm,

So, for you, how many tests, sets of positives vs. negatives...are sufficient to pull the trigger?

Do you need 5 out of 6?

Depends on whether you're slumming on the particular day, and the mood feels right?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/16/2005 3:43:21 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Storm,


So, for you, how many tests, sets of positives vs. negatives...are sufficient to pull the trigger?


Do you need 5 out of 6?


Depends on whether you''re slumming on the particular day, and the mood feels right?

depends on the test.
after work tonight ill give a detailed report on what I think of the diamond in question.
The hca is hitting it for the 41.1 pavilian angle.
Drop it down to 40.9 which is within the margin of error on the sarin and what do you get?

 

[belle]

let it be known:
from this day forth,
regular guy shall be known as expository guy

i''m not sure what exactly this post is intended to be.....a question? answers? information? perhaps all of the above and more....
i will sit back and watch the dialog unfold, as it should be interesting....

 

[icekid]

i feel better now.. i thought i was really slow today when i had no idea what was going on

 

[Rhino]

Hi Reg,

Between B''scope and HCA, that''s a no-brainer.

One is a *prediction* based on the averages of 17 out of 57 facets and there are too many assumptions included in the results (symmetry, minor facet arrangement, and no account for contrast).

One is a realtime live anlaysis of all 57 facets (or as many facets as the diamond has) as light interplays between them all.

I''ll take a live analysis over a prediciton any day.

Another perspective I liken this too ...

If you want to find out the truth about an object/item and you have the option of having a fortune teller attempt to predict what''s it''s going to look like vs someone (or even an instrument that reports the actual results for that item) who has the item in their hands and can inspect and examine it with advanced technologies *as well as* the expertise of the one examingin it ... who''s advice would you deem more valuable? The fortunte teller or the professional who has examined it?

 

[Lord Summerisle]

Date: 3/16/2005 3:22:10 PM
Author: Regular Guy
To the Lord,


For Adam, why didn''t you see a bad one, among his options. Did you see one of them scored below excellent on the HCA. You took the time to respond to him. Are you clear the Brilliancescope trumps HCA, or why were you unambivalent in making your comment?

Why... well all 3 look lovely - i forgive the second GoG as its on that cliff edge that can give some lovely effects - plus i trust Jon... dont think he would have invested in it if he didnt think it was a performer.

HCA, Brilliantscope, Ideal Scope.. they are all tools as an aid to the eye... but the eye is key - and i know Jon eye balls em all - not sure about DCD (think they do the same) but their numbers checked out ok.

That clear it up?

 

[Regular Guy]

Thanks all for your thoughts, and any others are welcome, of course.

Jonathan, yes, of course, your eyes are appreciated, and validated in my protocol. BTW...would you guess if "good" on the HCA will be found at your shop?

To the rest, thanks for bearing with me. Though my text may be long, and obviously, I may not be the most clear writer on the block...the original question couldn't be more basic, could it?

We all want to know just how much we have to know to buy a diamond, and then, know when we've compared enough. Seems like we all have to go through that when we're shopping. It just occured to me that it could be helpful to spell that out a bit.

Maybe someone else can say this in a more simple way, that works. I've shared a suggested formula above, repeated here...

When shopping for diamonds, you need to get two cut systems/experts to agree on the goodness and/or the superiority of the diamond.

Maybe you've figured out another approach. Would like to hear!

 

[JohnQuixote]

My suggested steps, in escalating order:

1. Indirect assessment - Raw data
Grading report information
Cut measurements
HCA prediction

* The above information is best used to eliminate undesirable candidates and retain the ones you like.

2. Semi-Direct assessment - Actual diamond represented
Inclusion plot from grading report
Actual magnified diamond photo
Ideal Scope Photo - or other red reflector photo
[ Patterning (H&A) photos if you're a cut geek or in the market for precision patterning ]

* The above information tells much about overall appearance and is valuable when deciding on final candidates.

2A. Biased Semi-Direct assessment - Typically used in sales, not science or lab, capacity
BrillianceScope and Isee2 type reports

* These can be interesting pieces of the puzzle but should not be used to split hairs

3. Direct Assessment - Human eyes
Your trusted jewelers
An appraisers if desired
Your own

* No substitute for direct assessment. The vendors' guaranteed examination and return period assures that there will be time for this most important, ultimate assessment.

 

[valeria101]

Interesting stuff !

Here's my recipe, for what that's worth.


Starting with the assumption that diamonds are bough for their looks and nothing else.

All the papers, specs and what not are just good to "reconstruct" the looks of a diamond and price it.

Complete info about looks and price is "necesary". It becomes "sufficinet" if comparable between diamonds. And downright *great* if there is enough background info to actually do the comparison.

Following this rule:

Necesary is... GIA (or some other paper of known reputation) and reasonable return policy.

The combination is not "sufficient" because the user cannot be expected to have a large pool of "goods" to compare the one find with. Prices related to GIA specs can be compared at least - but that makes only part of the pricing transparent (all for the better)


What is sufficient !? No idea

Online, it would take allot of effort to show what a diamond looks like in realistic lighting. Perhaps the range of photographs, reports and tests lined up by Exceldiamonds (ex Superbcert, as far as I understand) comes closest, although some of the "realistic" shots are rather idealized. And... even that doesn't quite give the feeling of diamond-in-hand.
Perhaps the easiest improvement to the photographic status quo would be to give some sense of scale to those otherwise amazingly detailed pictures (from Superbcert or elsewhere).

A mixed breed of "Gem Adviser" and Maya (for tops realistic rendering of trasparent media) would be great - assuming measurement error gets allot better, and the credibility issues related to the complicated information flow are sorted out.

On the ground - things do not get all that much better. There isn't much to compensate for buyer's lack of hands on experience. Assuming the lab report is there to help with color and clarity and price, if any cut grading tool can help that should be held by the buyer, not the seller. At present, the "reflector" tools (Ideal Scope & All) qualify.

 

[Regular Guy]

Two thoughts motivate this return entry:

1) John, your comments:

My suggested steps, in escalating order:

1. Indirect assessment - Raw data
Grading report information
Cut measurements
HCA prediction

* The above information is best used to eliminate undesirable candidates and retain the ones you like.

and also:

2) dajust, taking a 3rd swipe at the apple on the diamond he's looking at that is labeled "ideal" from the service he got it from, and his readily ignoring the advice to get that angle information.

A new question, I suppose...is....is it the chicken or the egg. Or, can it be a bad diamond, if it is listed on Pricescope, and/or offered by an internet vendor. How would you know? Maybe they're just all great, especially if they're listed as ideal.

Look at these two ideal scopes please:

So...what do you think of these two options?

Hold that thought.

I thought to tell dajust, with his being told he'd got an ideal cut diamond, but with only table and depth info, that he should look at the 60/60 in the tutorial. But, then, I got to thinking...yeah, I've been told that, but do I believe it! (and by the way...though it's called the 60/60, wouldn't the 55/60 make a lot more sense...as those actually do represent generally accepted ideal proportions).

So, I did a scan of the search by cut database here for ALL diamonds listed, but ranked VG to poor. It's an easy sort, and I found 150. And what did I see:

1) A number of diamonds come with in the standardly accepted good cut qualities of being within 2 degrees of 55 table and 60 depth. Proof of the fallacy of 60/60, right?

2) But wait, I look at the worst. You will see their ideal scope images above, as from White Flash. They rank as fair at 6.2 and 6.1. But, hey...they look pretty good! (Don't they...please check me!) Maybe this whole business is garbage!

3) Alternately, maybe the best theory is that if the diamond is kept by a well regarded vendor, and therefore appears on the search by cut database, they may well be a good selection.

John, not meaning to break your back, or pick on you. Although your two options here are the ones I pick on, frankly, it's mostly your options on the search by cut database anyway...so who else would I pick on! Really...just asking you to check your protocols. What do you think? Or any of you? Should we start by looking for HCAs of 0 - 2, as John and Garry suggest?

Maybe just no diamonds anybody is willing to call ideal is a dog. Any reason for anybody to check?

 

[Lord Summerisle]

ok comeing back at ya..

tho i put up front, again, i am no expert, but tend to put my thoughts out there to see how right i am in these instances.

Date: 3/18/2005 1:46:13 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Two thoughts motivate this return entry:


1) John, your comments:


My suggested steps, in escalating order:

1. Indirect assessment - Raw data

Grading report information

Cut measurements

HCA prediction

* The above information is best used to eliminate undesirable candidates and retain the ones you like.


and also:


2) dajust, taking a 3rd swipe at the apple on the diamond he''s looking at that is labeled ''ideal'' from the service he got it from, and his readily ignoring the advice to get that angle information.


A new question, I suppose...is....is it the chicken or the egg. Or, can it be a bad diamond, if it is listed on Pricescope, and/or offered by an internet vendor. How would you know? Maybe they''re just all great, especially if they''re listed as ideal.

i would say yes it could be a bad diamond even if listed by a PS vendor, just like anyone else. But those that check out each diamond and select those which meet their performance requirements, and put that info out for consumers to see tend to not have ''bad'' diamonds and as Garry has preached... a diamond doesnt have to have AGS graded ''ideal'' proportions to be an excellently performing diamond... hence AGS and GIA reassessing their cut grades. changing to reflect the cut charts of the HCA

Look at these two ideal scopes please:

So...what do you think of these two options?

well my untrained eye says... ok not close to showing arrows.. but the light return is good, #1 has the white flecks in the red similar to that of the ACA classic line, #2 is that an SI graded rock? just looking at the mark at the 4 o clock position, thats all. again it hasnt got the internal symitry of a H&A, but its not mareted as such... and not everyone wants those arrows... strange as it seems... i showed the picture of the 2 CZs Garry put up the other day on the discussion on the Brilliant scope, and he prefered the look of the ''bad'' cut over that of the good cut. - i divert... but again it seems to have good light return... i do wonder if what i am seeing is light leakage around the edge of the table, or thats just an illusion... but its not completely white, which leads me to think there is some leakage, but not total.

WF doesnt just deal in ideal cuts.. but has selected ones it likes from wholesalers... so, really it cant be judged on how close to ideal.. but is it a good diamond for the money... and giving a look the consumer likes - if they dont want the ordered look of the H&A

Hold that thought.


I thought to tell dajust, with his being told he''d got an ideal cut diamond, but with only table and depth info, that he should look at the 60/60 in the tutorial. But, then, I got to thinking...yeah, I''ve been told that, but do I believe it! (and by the way...though it''s called the 60/60, wouldn''t the 55/60 make a lot more sense...as those actually do represent generally accepted ideal proportions).

or 56/60 or 57/60 or really anything between 53-55/58-62.3


So, I did a scan of the search by cut database here for ALL diamonds listed, but ranked VG to poor. It''s an easy sort, and I found 150. And what did I see:


1) A number of diamonds come with in the standardly accepted good cut qualities of being within 2 degrees of 55 table and 60 depth. Proof of the fallacy of 60/60, right?


2) But wait, I look at the worst. You will see their ideal scope images above, as from White Flash. They rank as fair at 6.2 and 6.1. But, hey...they look pretty good! (Don''t they...please check me!) Maybe this whole business is garbage!


3) Alternately, maybe the best theory is that if the diamond is kept by a well regarded vendor, and therefore appears on the search by cut database, they may well be a good selection.


John, not meaning to break your back, or pick on you. Although your two options here are the ones I pick on, frankly, it''s mostly your options on the search by cut database anyway...so who else would I pick on! Really...just asking you to check your protocols. What do you think? Or any of you? Should we start by looking for HCAs of 0 - 2, as John and Garry suggest?


Maybe just no diamonds anybody is willing to call ideal is a dog. Any reason for anybody to check?

or maybe in the end its how it looks to the eye that counts... and we as consumers have to weight up presented evidence, and come to a descision as to who to listen to and who you trust to give your money to in return for a chunk of carbon

in the same way as buying a car...

just because they are a Jag dealer doesnt mean every car on their lot is a great buy... and if you went to 2 differnt jag dealers... and one was a sleezy guy and the other open and honest... who would you buy a car from?

 

[valeria101]

There's something I don't get: what's wrong with those two ? The IS looks pretty darn great both for symmetry (especially the first) and light return (both, really).


The title of the thread does not mention "H&A" just "diamonds" - so reading the IS of a round the same way for all shapes sounds fair, no.

Sort of off-topic: there are at least two diamonds with arrows (only Nice Ice and GOG still publish H&A viewer checks, no ?) and nowhere near AGS0 (one 59%-59% at WF another 64%-54% at DCD).


And one question: do these cut grading tools make any of you feel more confident about purchasing a diamond from a random seller ?

 

[strmrdr]

R.G.
Those are expert selection diamonds and the criteria for them is basicaly that Brian likes it and he can sell it at a price that represents a good value to the client.
Thats not how they put it on the website but I think John will agree thats the way it is.
You will find some strange diamonds from time to time if you look at the specs but there must be something about them that catches Brian''s eye.
If someone is interested in one contacting him about it could be both fun and educational.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/18/2005 3:7:12 PM
Author: strmrdr

You will find some strange diamonds from time to time if you look at the specs but there must be something (good) about them.

If someone is interested in one contacting him about it could be both fun and educational.

True enough, there aren''t many non AGS0 diamonds that come with enough information to talk about them. Keeping in mind the AGS0 proportions represents a small fraction of diamonds, they are the exception. There''s never been a diverse sample of different proportions to allow choice away from AGS0. Garry might as well cut the HCA chart down to that white square in the middle - the rest stayed mostly unused anyway.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/18/2005 3

3:49 PM
Author: valeria101

And one question: do these cut grading tools make any of you feel more confident about purchasing a diamond from a random seller ?

No, not accross the net anyway.
A known and trusted vendor is still a huge part of the decision.
What they do provide is a way for the vendors to show us in various ways what they are seeing and why and how that diamond is different from another.

 

[Regular Guy]

Appreciate your comments.

And thanks, Lord. Of course, where you say:

"or maybe in the end its how it looks to the eye that counts... and we as consumers have to weight up presented evidence, and come to a decision as to who to listen to and who you trust to give your money to in return for a chunk of carbon."

this matches of course, too, with John''s prescription and conclusion...

3. Direct Assessment - Human eyes
Your trusted jewelers
An appraisers if desired
Your own
* No substitute for direct assessment. The vendors'' guaranteed examination and return period assures that there will be time for this most important, ultimate assessment.

I guess I am just asking here if my protocols haven''t been spun a bit. The order of operations had been clear enough, where you do that last step last, after passing through your options from one sieve after another, right?

Just wondering if that system still works for me, and everyone here. Cause otherwise...where to start, exactly?

Many thanks.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/18/2005 5:23:42 PM
Author: Regular Guy


I guess I am just asking here if my protocols haven''t been spun a bit.

I think they have...

Perhaps I should have followed up your initial post instead adding some "IMO" rambling

However, I am not sure I understand the core.

Staring from the example (those three stones on this thread). It took a minute of confusion to understand what had the HCA to do with them... I had something different in mind when looking at those: knowing that IS is more precise than HCA off the bat (since it takes allot more detail into consideration), the score didn''t even enter the picture.

Perhaps it is ultra safe to just try to top all possible scores, charts and metrics if possible (GOG''s stuff, and HCA and what not)... but, does it make sense ? Each of these expert systems seems to rate something slightly different and the conclusions may not always be in agreement. Same for democratic votes - I just can''t trust 100% unanimity "Banana republic" style. All in all - narrowing down options until every score gets tops (probably the price too) is just not part of my "protocol" - hence the posts like the one you mention). This is probably as much psichology as anything.

About having two grading systems validate each other.
This clearly seems to work only for very carefully selected "pairs". Since these are competing branding tools, I would not expect their results to be compatible. (try Bscope & Iscope for fancies or non-H&A rounds - the two seem quite alien).

About the appraisal protocol
Well, having two human experts in agreement sounds quite a bit more valuable than having two rule-of-thumb systems agree. Having an appraiser agree with the claims of the seller (and my expectations, after all) would mean "value added" to me. Just in general. Obviously there is allot more value added from the appraisal of an estate piece compared to adding paper over GIA report. But.. to each his own. Of course there is some "residual risk" no matter how many delivery stops there are on the trail between buyer and seller.

Hopefully this bit answers the original Q of the thread better.

 

[Regular Guy]

Ana,

To your last point. first, where you say:

"Well, having two human experts in agreement sounds quite a bit more valuable than having two rule-of-thumb systems agree..."

Although this may be the case, and although relatedly, Dave above suggests:

"we can assist those who want or need help through the maze of advisors and stones being offered..."

despite this being an ideal case, unless we drag Dave or one of his brethren to the store with us, I''m afraid that''s quite the exception, rather like taking the mountain to Mohammad.

I wouldn''t quarrel with the place of the appraiser in a diamond shopping context, and believe Dave''s other comments are more applicable to the case...

because otherwise, I think I need to stand by my original idea...

"Where''s there''s relatives...an appraiser won''t be able to help too much."

because most often, you''re bringing Mohammad to the mountain, or in other words, the diamond to the appraiser...maybe even 2....possibly, conceivably three...but probably just one...the one you''d narrowed it down to...in which case the appraiser is really less specifically available, as I understand it, to help you through the maze of stones being offered, which is the matter of shopping.

and then, to your first point...

"knowing that IS is more precise than HCA off the bat (since it takes allot more detail into consideration)..."

well, I suppose that points to a substantive part of the question I''m raising in my re-introduction of this thread today. Although the IS may be designed to help us ferret out our choices...what to make of what seems to be provisionally positive IS views of stones that rank 6 and above on the HCA?

And if some diamonds scoring 6 on the HCA yield good IS images, where to begin with looking at them?

Finally, a) interesting point about seeking perhaps complementary grading systems...not sure about what strategy to implement there, and b) mostly, thanks for teasing through/working through what is certainly too frequently gnarly logics here.

Of course, the hope is that at the end of the day, some benefit may emerge.

best wishes,

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/18/2005 7:35:31 PM
Author: Regular Guy

And if some diamonds scoring 6 on the HCA yield good IS images, where to begin with looking at them?

Glad you mentioned... For the piece below, it doesn't sound like any of the tools used on it says where to start looking.

Here's a beauty: 1 carat G/Si1

HCA: doesn't give a score, it says the low crown is prone to chipping.(see * below)

B-SCope: tops (Vh - H/Vh - H/Vh)

IS: (the GA shows virtually no white)

Gem Adviser scores: better than H&A get

Price: about the same as H&A J/SI2

Jonathan obviously had better to do than comment on this freak. In an e-mail he said:
"That is an estate diamond my assistant had scanned in and I didn't get the chance to hawk eye it. I [...] was intrigued by the results. Yea ... that stone and another AGS 10 we had scanned got the highest results I've ever seen on the GA! LOL."

It takes some digging in the data to find a trace of the glaring difference between this and the usual H&A, AGS0 cherry. If the lack of pattern doesn't put you off from the start.


* This stone has a thick (4-5%) girdle, and the HCA doesn't know it.

 

[Maxine]

Very interesting..........