What would a girlfriend want?

[dbanner8732]

http://goodoldgold.com/4Cs/NewCutGrading/GIAExAGSIdeal/

Check this article out. Not that I'm calling anybody wrong, but I feel like I have been kind of brainwashed on this HCA thing. I went to read some more about HCA and see if those scores are so undeniably accurate. What I was thinking was this- if it is the dead on, pinpoint, exact score of a diamond (not just excellent very good and so on) why doesnt the diamond industry use this as it's grading standards? I mean it is an exact score. 1.8.. 2.3... dead on. I found some interesting information about the light leakage under the table that is recognized in the HCA score is not often recognized by the human eye of the GIA graders. It is technically there, but to the human eye it is impossible to see. Check this article out.

Again, not saying I told you so at all! I am sure that diamonds that score better on the HCA are overall better than diamonds that score a little higher. But I felt I was only getting the pro HCA side of the story. Also, I found that these scores are all based on the opinions of one guy that prefers the angles to be below 35 and around 41. It's like the election here. I'm either in the democratic convention or the GOP with all of you wonderful helpers lol. You guys pick what your party affiliation you'd like to be called.

 

[TC1987]

All of these things are just tools to evaluate a diamond. You use the tools, and you see how the diamond stacks up in all of them. If it looks good across the board in all of the "systems", then you know it has to pretty close to a top tier cut.

If you want to settle this in your own mind, then just order whatever the heck you want to try, take a look at it, and make up your own mind whether or not your compromises work for you and her, and be done with it. As the DBL guy says, diamonds have to be seen. AND I'll tell you that the farther away you get from the standardized HCA under 2 and ideal symmetry and precise patterning, the more quirky the diamonds get. AND the more they have to be seen in order to make a decision. One thing that makes ideal H&A AGS 000 / GIA excellent so popular for online buying, sight unseen, is that they are a fairly homogenous group. And practicality guaranteed to present a great light return and nice balance of fire and brilliance in all kinds of lighting.

The people here are giving you advice on how to pick the best. And PS has been doing that since what, 2002 or 2003? [edited to remove the snarky comment]

 

[dbanner8732]

I don't know why you get mad tc1987 lol. I just bring up an article that is contrary to everything that has been pushed on me. I'm not calling anybody wrong or giving advice. I'm the one trying to get advice, but when i go to other experts and get a totally different opinion about the HCA and its importance, then I am going to ask you folks what you think about those apples.

I have no idea, like I said. I am treating this not only as a purchasing experience, but as a learning experience. I don't know why you throw a hissy fit when all I do is show you that the HCA is not the bible, and many experts out there disregard its relevance and importance in regards to the common consumer when it comes to buying a diamond. I encourage all opinions on here, and would not shut any of them down, but I had a feeling I would get a snobby response to my previous post.

 

[Niel]

I think tc1987 gets frustrated because you seem to discard the advise that diamond experts are giving you. That somehow the science behind picking a diamond doesn't apply to the diamonds you're looking at. You came here to get the best stone for your budget right?

That JA diamond you like seems to fit all hour criteria and the Hca under 2 criteria. Why don't you want it? Just because its not from Ritani?

Eta. I don't claim to be an expert. But some very smart diamond people have come to the thread to help you out.

 

[dbanner8732]

Nielseel, I agree that I have had a bunch of people come help me on here. I appreciate every one of you guys! It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me when I go somewhere else and see that they basically disregard that a 3.0 and a 1.1 on the HCA are "better" or "worse" than each other. But on here it's all I've heard about is HCA. The only thing on here (and this is an objective opinion not subjective) that people call good or bad diamonds are what the HCA score reflects. If it's under 2 yay. If it's over 2 boo.

Just frustrates me because I don't understand why people here give so much credibility to the HCA and the HCA only, and other experts brush it off like it's a bunch of bologna. You see how that can frustrate me too?

Does PS and HCA have some agreement lol?

 

[Niel]

All of these things are just tools to evaluate a diamond. You use the tools, and you see how the diamond stacks up in all of them. If it looks good across the board in all of the "systems", then you know it has to pretty close to a top tier cut.

If you want to settle this in your own mind, then just order whatever the heck you want to try, take a look at it, and make up your own mind whether or not your compromises work for you and her, and be done with it. As the DBL guy says, diamonds have to be seen. AND I'll tell you that the farther away you get from the standardized HCA under 2 and ideal symmetry and precise patterning, the more quirky the diamonds get. AND the more they have to be seen in order to make a decision. One thing that makes ideal H&A AGS 000 / GIA excellent so popular for online buying, sight unseen, is that they are a fairly homogenous group. And practicality guaranteed to present a great light return and nice balance of fire and brilliance in all kinds of lighting.

The people here are giving you advice on how to pick the best. And PS has been doing that since what, 2002 or 2003? [edited to remove the snarky comment]

It's not the only judge, go look at some stones at GOG, they have a lot of tools that test the performance of the stone. But the bolded part of this is why it's important. Ritani ( very likely) isn't going to provide you with all sorts of tools for assessing the performance. So you go with the HCA as a fallback knowing that those less than 2 will have the performance that is desirable for a diamond. Because you're buying this stone online. Or seeing it in a store with trick light that could make a shard of glass sparkle. So they tell you to go off that TOOL to help yourself know you're getting a stone that performs well. When you step out of it, it doesn't mean for sure it's a bad stone. But doesn't give you the certainty it is like a good HCA score does.

 

[dbanner8732]

I think we can agree 100% on your last post nielseel. That seems like a way more reasonable explanation of the HCA tool. You are right about ritani not offering anything as far as other tools go. They do offer me to see the diamond in a 360 degree visual which is nice.

When you step out of it, it doesn't mean for sure it's a bad stone. But doesn't give you the certainty it is like a good HCA score does.

Obviously it has some relevance. I think I would just be somewhere in the middle on this issue. I think how you worded your last sentence seems more fair to me. Before, it was under 2 yay over 2 no way.

 

[Niel]

I liken it to buying a car. I know what I like in a car , color size gas mileage. But I know I want a good engine and longevity. I have no idea what makes car perform better, but I know I want it to haha.

The "hassle " of getting the stone and setting from two different places really isn't as much as you are assuming, I think. If you have a place that sells ritani in your area call them up, ask if they will set your stone for no extra charge. If so then you just walk in give them your stone and they take care of it.

 

[John P]

Nielseel, I agree that I have had a bunch of people come help me on here. I appreciate every one of you guys! It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me when I go somewhere else and see that they basically disregard that a 3.0 and a 1.1 on the HCA are "better" or "worse" than each other. But on here it's all I've heard about is HCA. The only thing on here (and this is an objective opinion not subjective) that people call good or bad diamonds are what the HCA score reflects. If it's under 2 yay. If it's over 2 boo.

I read you here. This is a function of getting consumer-input on an internet forum. In situations where assistance is coming from a consumer enthusiast trying to help from afar using limited data the HCA offers a long-standing safety net.

Ultimately the HCA is blind. It is simply making a "chalk outline" of the diamond. Scores under 2.0 go to primary angles inside a widely agreed-on range for high performance, but the tool is still distilling 57-58 facets down to a rudimentary chalk outline. Per the GOG article it can possibly disqualify stones which could be fine, depending on details that the HCA can't possibly see. But it can also approve the odd stone with poorly chosen lower half lengths, digging, painting, wide variations from average angle given, poor cut precision or other elements it cannot see.

This is why the HCA is stipulated by its creator as a rejection tool: Stones above 2.0 have a good chance of leakage. Stones under 2.0 are worthy of strong consideration. Factually it has proven a strong tool over time on this forum. The GOG article was written when Jonathan of GOG began selling a line of diamonds with borderline HCA results. With his careful guidance those diamonds he was producing avoided any issues. But in my experience that article is more applicable to diamonds in a specific production chosen by a cut-focused expert than it is to commercially produced diamonds in the mainstream with same-scores.

It may be helpful to know that the systems long-referenced here (HCA, GIA, AGSL and AGA) share an area where their top grades overlap - but they don't all agree on the exact "bullseye" of best angular combinations. Pavilion angle is what many consider the most critical element and is good for showing where the ‘centers’ of the different systems lie. For 53-58% tables, you'll find that pavilion angles 40.6-41.0 have the greatest approval cross-system. The AGS cut guidelines suggest most 0 candidates in that range. The HCA and AGA prefer the shallow side of that range and a bit lower, which is why some shallow GIA VGs still get top marks in other systems. The GIA system prefers the steep side and higher, which is why many GIA EX fall outside the criteria of other systems.

I've operated in these systems and others from Europe and Asia. With few exceptions I embrace at least a portion of every system and am able to explain to my professional clients the rationales used behind them. That's the positive of all-of-this. The negative is that - unlike color & clarity - there is no uniform agreement on fundamental approach to cut, in most systems visibly different performance levels are not separated and factors which influence value remain undisclosed.

That's why you don't usually find 4-page (and counting) threads on color.

 

[TC1987]

I don't know why you get mad tc1987 lol. I just bring up an article that is contrary to everything that has been pushed on me. I'm not calling anybody wrong or giving advice. I'm the one trying to get advice, but when i go to other experts and get a totally different opinion about the HCA and its importance, then I am going to ask you folks what you think about those apples.

I have no idea, like I said. I am treating this not only as a purchasing experience, but as a learning experience. I don't know why you throw a hissy fit when all I do is show you that the HCA is not the bible, and many experts out there disregard its relevance and importance in regards to the common consumer when it comes to buying a diamond. I encourage all opinions on here, and would not shut any of them down, but I had a feeling I would get a snobby response to my previous post.

The only thought I have to add is you need to consider the leadtime required to get this ring vs. the deadline that you need it, if there is one, especially if you plan to use something other than a mass-produced Tiffany style mounting.