Whiteflash A cut Above

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/3/2008 3:27:53 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 2/3/2008 1:11:50 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 2/3/2008 12:16:11 PM
Author: Michel
Also,

On the HCA page is says:

Your own personal preference may be for a diamond with an HCA score of 1.5 more rather than one with a lower score of say 0.5.

How can this be - can someone explain? Why isn''t lower better?

Thanks

Stones that get a score of say .05, will usually be shallow in depth, with shallow crown and pavillion angles. These stones may suffer from head shadow (your head blocks the light when looking close up, causing the stone to get darker), and scintillation may suffer a bit.

I do wonder if this is true. In other words, I think that this is absolutely not true. But maybe Garry can chime in here.

Live long,

Ellen is correct Paul

 

[Ellen]

Date: 2/4/2008 3:16:56 AM
Author: Michel
Ellen''s words have confused me, though. I do not know what to make of it now, then.... : /

I''m sorry, that''s certainly not what I wanted to do! What would you like clarification on Michel?

 

[Lord Summerisle]

just for the record... the stone i bought a couple of years ago was the following
Depth 59.9%
Table 57%
Crown 34.8
Pavilion 40.6

which when you plug it into the HCA comes out at 0.7 ex in all categories.

0.5-1.5 - are different flavours and personalities

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/4/2008 5:31:59 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 2/3/2008 3:27:53 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 2/3/2008 1:11:50 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 2/3/2008 12:16:11 PM
Author: Michel
Also,

On the HCA page is says:

Your own personal preference may be for a diamond with an HCA score of 1.5 more rather than one with a lower score of say 0.5.

How can this be - can someone explain? Why isn''t lower better?

Thanks

Stones that get a score of say .05, will usually be shallow in depth, with shallow crown and pavillion angles. These stones may suffer from head shadow (your head blocks the light when looking close up, causing the stone to get darker), and scintillation may suffer a bit.

I do wonder if this is true. In other words, I think that this is absolutely not true. But maybe Garry can chime in here.

Live long,

Ellen is correct Paul

Thinking about this what Paul is likely getting at is he has pointed out in the past that he can and has cut shallow/shallow with proper selection of stars/lgf/precision cutting/other stuff that have no issues.
That is why I changed from avoid to have an expert evaluate them and Ellen says "may".

 

[Michel]

I suppose what I am really asking - I have a great cut of a stone, it is within all my specs in terms of colour - what framework do I now use to select the final one?

If HCA is an exclusionary tool, what tool do i clinch with?

Thanks!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 2/4/2008 9:47:47 AM
Author: Michel
I suppose what I am really asking - I have a great cut of a stone, it is within all my specs in terms of colour - what framework do I now use to select the final one?

If HCA is an exclusionary tool, what tool do i clinch with?

Thanks!

Really now you have to follow your gut, your heart and your own preferences! You know you have choices from the best cut diamond's available, with all the hard work and cut analysis done for you, and now you cannot really choose between such top specimens with minutiae in cut, so go with the one you feel suits your needs the best - you CANNOT go wrong!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 2/4/2008 9:47:47 AM
Author: Michel
I suppose what I am really asking - I have a great cut of a stone, it is within all my specs in terms of colour - what framework do I now use to select the final one?

If HCA is an exclusionary tool, what tool do i clinch with?

Thanks!

Well, it''s not just one thing. If you are using the HCA to weed through them, go for ones where the x lands preferably in the overlap area of GIA and AGS.

After that, an IS (Idealscope pic) is needed, along with a good vendor to eyeball it for you. It just depends. An ACA is safe, most of GOG''s H&A''s are safe.

If you are not wanting a crash, or long course in diamonds 101, pick some you think look like what you want and post them here for opinions. We''d love to help you.

 

[Lord Summerisle]

Ultimately - your eyes.

if your choosing between the two diamonds you have posted Ideal scope images of on the previous page then i think your into hair splitting area.

the HCA says it is a broad brush rejection tool - ie, discount everything that scores less than Very Good, and that a score under 2 is worth further investigation. beyond that score - weither it be 0.5 or 1.5 - different people will perfer differant things.

Next consult the ideal scope images - you''ve posted both - and there is nothing of worry (to my eyes anyway)

So logically the final step is to put both stones before your eyes at an independant appraiser or go eni meeni/ib dib dob and choose one.

But try to avoid anaylisis paralysis - delving too deep into areas that in the real world of wearing the stone are minute differances.

this pricescope video may help - Pricescope and James Allen out in Central Park showing off 3 differant diamond to see peoples preferances.
using a stone that score 0.5 (34.5/40.5 combo) another that scores 1.1 (34/40.8 combo) and a 4.9 (35/41.4)
video

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 2/4/2008 9:11:41 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 2/4/2008 5:31:59 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 2/3/2008 3:27:53 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 2/3/2008 1:11:50 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 2/3/2008 12:16:11 PM
Author: Michel
Also,

On the HCA page is says:

Your own personal preference may be for a diamond with an HCA score of 1.5 more rather than one with a lower score of say 0.5.

How can this be - can someone explain? Why isn''t lower better?

Thanks

Stones that get a score of say .05, will usually be shallow in depth, with shallow crown and pavillion angles. These stones may suffer from head shadow (your head blocks the light when looking close up, causing the stone to get darker), and scintillation may suffer a bit.

I do wonder if this is true. In other words, I think that this is absolutely not true. But maybe Garry can chime in here.

Live long,

Ellen is correct Paul

Thinking about this what Paul is likely getting at is he has pointed out in the past that he can and has cut shallow/shallow with proper selection of stars/lgf/precision cutting/other stuff that have no issues.
That is why I changed from avoid to have an expert evaluate them and Ellen says ''may''.

Thank you, Storm.

Plus, in these angles, I find the use of the word ''shallow'' inappropriate. But I am really putting too much emphasis on single words, now. Forgive me for that.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/4/2008 11:46:36 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 2/4/2008 9:11:41 AM
Author: strmrdr

Thinking about this what Paul is likely getting at is he has pointed out in the past that he can and has cut shallow/shallow with proper selection of stars/lgf/precision cutting/other stuff that have no issues.
That is why I changed from avoid to have an expert evaluate them and Ellen says ''may''.

Thank you, Storm.

Plus, in these angles, I find the use of the word ''shallow'' inappropriate. But I am really putting too much emphasis on single words, now. Forgive me for that.

Live long,

It is me who should be forgiven then. Thanks Storm for the clarification.

 

[Michel]

So, really, if I get a great cut in the spec I want from, say, Whiteflash, James Allen or GOG, then I''m fine, right?(to return to the original point of the thread?) I have seem some great ones on James Allen in that case....

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/4/2008 4:03:30 PM
Author: Michel
So, really, if I get a great cut in the spec I want from, say, Whiteflash, James Allen or GOG, then I''m fine, right?(to return to the original point of the thread?) I have seem some great ones on James Allen in that case....

they all sell some exellent stones.
If the one your looking at has a exellent looking IS image and scores low on the HCA have it checked and discuss it with your vendor.

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 2/4/2008 9:47:47 AM
Author: Michel
I suppose what I am really asking - I have a great cut of a stone, it is within all my specs in terms of colour - what framework do I now use to select the final one?

If HCA is an exclusionary tool, what tool do i clinch with?

Thanks!

The great thing in my opinion is that all ACA''s are beautiful and that you really can''t go wrong with your decision.

I would select from the list of possibilities by making sure that the clarity is eye clean, the color is where you would like it to be (do you like icey white, a balance, or value for your money), price, and also tiny differences in cut that some people prefer (for example, some prefer a smaller vs. larger table, etc). If you have two stones that have a similar cut and the clarity and color are where you want them, then honestly I would just buy the cheaper one or one that faces up larger! You could also consider asking the folks at WF to eyeball them in person and give their real life opinion as to which stone they prefer.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 2/4/2008 4:03:30 PM
Author: Michel
So, really, if I get a great cut in the spec I want from, say, Whiteflash, James Allen or GOG, then I''m fine, right?(to return to the original point of the thread?) I have seem some great ones on James Allen in that case....

WhiteFlash and GOG have much better trade in policies if you should ever want to change to a larger or more expensive stone.