Why is Diamond Talk discussion so critical of the HCA?

[noobie]

I’ve learned so much in the last few weeks here; it’s been amazing.In my quest for more knowledge, I came across the Diamond Talk Forum.I noticed a few things that were a bit peculiar.

There seems to be a fair bit of criticism of the HCA.It’s referred to as the “Nut Advisor”.They seem to say that it is not really a useful tool and that buying diamonds on-line with specifications and analyses is somewhat foolish.It seems to be a thinly veiled dig at some of the vendors here such as GOG, who provides extraordinary detail on their diamonds.They say don’t trust the numbers. There is also a thread showing that a diamond with an AGS 0 ideal cut that did not perform well on the Brilliance Scope.The lesson was supposed to be that an AGS 0 ideal cut can still perform poorly.I think we all know that here. However, when I looked at the certificate I noticed that the crown and pavilion angles were 35.5 and 41.2 respectively.Now, I’m no expert, but I’ve learned enough, through reading posts, about the too steep and deep crown and pavilion angles effect to recognize that stone could be trouble. Combined with a 62.5 depth, 55 table yielded a HCA of 4.4!

These views of “ beware on numbers” seem to be propagated by two dominant vendors on the forum.

Also, the posts to view ratio is quite low.There seem to be a large number of views, a large number of members and visitors, but relatively few posts.The discussion does not seem to be as dynamic as it is here as well.

What gives?

 

[winyan]

Hi Noobie...

For whatever reason, that particular forum you cited has been in flux lately.

You know the old saying "If you can't say anything good, then don't say anything at all?"

err...well...

win

PS There are plenty of experts here, with great minds!

 

[pyramid]

The owner of the HCA is Garry Holloway who posts on this forum under the name CutNut, this may be why they chose the name Nut Advisor.

Although, there probably are very good points for seeing the diamond in person, this is a relatively new take by some of the vendors on diamondtalk, I would say it is all marketing.

A lot of the posters over here as in experts like vendors, gemologists, scientifically educated people used to post on diamondtalk as well, now there are not many qualified people over there. The consumers are not as interested as the ones over here are on cut, clarity etc. and like to discuss instead their own jewellery and perhaps talk in a more romantic way about jewellery in the way a jewellery store or debeers advertise. Whilst people over here are interested in how new engagement rings look they are also interested more in what makes a diamond look good or not.

A lot of posters over there are also more interested in cubic zirconia rings.

 

[phoenixgirl]

I also think that a lot of people lurk at DT but don't join because it's regulated a lot more and requires a credit card number to join. I used to be a member before you needed a credit card number, but once you needed one, it weirded me out too much and I didn't bother reactivating my membership.

I remember certain members being banned, or having all their posts deleted, or certain words (likes the names of vendors) being censored, etc. I just decided it was too silly, and found PS instead.

 

[strmrdr]

Lets not start a board war here.

The bottom line is that some members here and some there dont get along very well.
There are also a lot that post both places.
This isnt the time nor the place to get into it beyond that.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Oops, okay, I'm deleting my response because it wasn't nice. Sorry, it's hard not to post an opinionated response (lol). . .

michelle

 

[pricescope]

Re: Why is Diamond Talk discussion so critical of the HCA?

Because there are quite a few people who dislike HCA and Pricescope (to say the least).

HCA was introduced over 3 years ago as a better alternative to AGS grading system for preliminary diamond filtering based on average crown and pavilion angles (same as AGS). It was never claimed to be a substitute for personal and/or professional examination of the diamonds.

More about HCA background can be found in this article.

On another note, spending energy on hate never has been positive nor creative. Let it be on their conscience. Let's do not discuss other venues here.

 

[diamondlil]

Thank you, Leonid.






DiamondLil

 

[phoenixgirl]

Who has said anything hateful?

Yeesh. I agree that life is too short to sit around hating other people. I just explained honestly why I visit this forum instead of DT. All of that stuff about censorship, bannings, and giving your credit card number to them are true. I was answering the question about posts versus views, not just making up stuff to spread bitterness all throughout the world.

Anyway, just be glad that you participate in a forum where people are free to *encourage* you to avoid certain topics instead of just deleting them for you.

 

[Demelza]

I was treated in a very hostile manner by 2 different vendors on Diamond Talk simply by mentioning the HCA and posting a link to an alternative diamond. I, and several others, were accused of being "schills" for goodness knows who. I still don't understand why. I was simply trying to help a poster who was considering buying a 2 carat stone.

 

[Appreciative-of-expertise]

I wish to comment on the reference to GOG. I was looking for a princess stone and quickly learned that the usual specs that one references (ratios, etc) really solely be used when searching for a fancy cut stone. Rhino at GOG did all the brilliance scope stuff and other eval that are his tools for either recommending a stone or not. I went with his suggestion and, according to the AGS chart, it would not have been the best performer. According to Rhino's tool - it was. Well - this 3ct icecube rocks! Richard Sherwood, the independent appraiser, left me a vmail today stating that it was a fantastic stone - perhaps one of the best that he has ever seen. Therefore, from my perspective, those "tools" which GOG used help to tell them that and proved it to me electronically....my 2 cents.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/21/2004 6:20:32 PM strmrdr wrote:





Lets not start a board war here.

The bottom line is that some members here and some there dont get along very well.
There are also a lot that post both places.
This isnt the time nor the place to get into it beyond that.

----------------

Let's not start a board war? I think that's being a bit dramatic.

Noobie is asking a valid question, and his intent doesn't seem to be to "stir the pot". He's trying to understand why a tool that is considered fairly reputable here isn't viewed as such someplace else. It's not a great deal different than someone trying to understand why a diamond is recommended here but discarded using Fred Cuellar's criteria. In doing one's homework, it's normal to ask why when given opposing opinions on something.

That's a great deal different than former members of the "other network" wanting to use PS as a place to trash talk about another forum.

Let's not take an innocent question and turn it into a point of contention.

 

[mhtv]

regardless of what you or i may think of diamondtalk, the HCA remarks referred to in the first post of this thread make good sense. it appears that some people in this thread do not like the remarks about HCA, but instead of actually analyzing the logic and facts of those remarks, and giving logical, factual counter-points, they attack the forum, and the imagined motives. that is a sure sign of a lack of ability to dispute the actual points made about the HCA.

 

[mhtv]

also, i think Leonid, being the owner of this forum, and having such an obvious self-interest in supporting the HCA, being the major promoter of the HCA, would take more effort to remain neutral on the subject in the discussion thread. the site owner, participating in a discussion thread, and taking a clear position favoring one point of view over another on a particular subject is bound to suppress opposing views on the thread. this impedes open and unfettered discussion, and skews it in favor of the site owner's point of view.

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 3/22/2004 8:20:02 AM aljdewey wrote:

----------------

On 3/21/2004 6:20:32 PM strmrdr wrote:





Lets not start a board war here.


The bottom line is that some members here and some there dont get along very well.

There are also a lot that post both places.

This isnt the time nor the place to get into it beyond that.


----------------

Let's not start a board war? I think that's being a bit dramatic.

Noobie is asking a valid question, and his intent doesn't seem to be to 'stir the pot'. He's trying to understand why a tool that is considered fairly reputable here isn't viewed as such someplace else. It's not a great deal different than someone trying to understand why a diamond is recommended here but discarded using Fred Cuellar's criteria. In doing one's homework, it's normal to ask why when given opposing opinions on something.

That's a great deal different than former members of the 'other network' wanting to use PS as a place to trash talk about another forum.

Let's not take an innocent question and turn it into a point of contention.

----------------

My comment is based on years of being involved in various discussion mediums and forums on the net and having seen literly hundreds of very nasty board wars.
Believe me we dont want one here.

 

[hoorray]

Back to the HCA.....I think it is a valid question for new people to ask. When I first found it, I thought it was pretty nice to be able to plug in the numbers and get an opinion, but I had no basis to decide if it was credible or not, not knowing Garry Halloway from anyone else in this industry. The fact that one forum seems to think it isn't as credible as this one does should give someone new to the personalities and style differences between the 2 forums some questions.

What ended up convincing me is that many of the experts here seem to think it is a good first screen on stones.

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 3/21/2004 6:20:32 PM strmrdr wrote:





Lets not start a board war here.

The bottom line is that some members here and some there dont get along very well.
There are also a lot that post both places.
This isnt the time nor the place to get into it beyond that.

----------------

Wow, I believe that this is somwhat of an extreme interpretation or misunderstanding of my original questions.

I'm interested in views and discussions of the HCA and why some people have varying views of it's use. I don't quite understand impact of minor facet proportions and how the HCA is an average of certain facets. I just want to more fully understand the limitations of certain tools and think it's worthwhile to hear diverging views as well. I referenced the other forum because that's where the majority of the opinions were from.

I also found it odd that the board had many hits and views, but little in depth informative posts except the ones I refered. Please, this is just in my humble opinion. I have no prior knowledge or experience with any of these forums and now no intention of having a "war of boards" I would suggest that the moderators remove my thread if that's where the discussion goes.

Personally, I'm more interested in buying the nicest diamonds I can at the the most reasonable cost, and frankly all of the things I've learned have helped that. I just want to learn more.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/22/2004 9:21:12 AM strmrdr wrote:




My comment is based on years of being involved in various discussion mediums and forums on the net and having seen literly hundreds of very nasty board wars.
Believe me we dont want one here.
----------------

But there's no need to be preemptive when a) that hasn't happened, and b) that WASN'T the intent of the comment. In fact, by your choosing to focus on the "us. vs. them" aspect, *you* are the one perpetuating the problem. Noobie is trying to find out why there are such differing schools of thought on the usefulness of the HCA. You, Storm, are the one trying to interpret the discussion as a mud-slinging between mediums.

You are making a huge rush to judgment where it is not warranted. Noobie wasn't responsible for the "hundreds" of other scenarios you were in, and he shouldn't bear the brunt of *your* past experience by asking an innocent question.

Put another way: Let's be sure there are clear signs the castle is indeed under siege before sending out the cavalry to defend it.

 

[fire&ice]

To offer a different view. Perhaps there exists a leaning towards HCA in a positive note here on this board. It is a tool. Pure & simple. Just one more thing to aid in finding a stone blind on the internet.

Yes, your eyes should be the final judge. But, to assume that looking at the numbers doesn't help in eliminating *possible* poor performers is just plain hogwash & *very* slanted to that particular dealers agenda. Again, Pure & Simple.

To find out who may be presenting there argument more legitimately, just read the moniker of *the* advertising diamond dealer on DT. Now, who would you listen to? The rantings of someone who insists on using derogotory names, speaks of the consumer as stupid, and accusing PS contributors as being "shills"?Or, someone who calmly states facts, points you in the direction to make up your own mind & does so without slinging mud?

I know whose camp I'd be in. It's a no-brainer.

 

[elmo]

----------------
On 3/21/2004 6:05:04 PM noobie wrote:

It seems to be a thinly veiled dig at some of the vendors here such as GOG, who provides extraordinary detail on their diamonds.

----------------

I don't agree with this interpretation of why there is criticism of HCA. I would suggest that you give Jon a call and ask him whether he uses HCA to select the diamonds he sells. I think he'll tell you there's quite a bit more to his selection process than the information HCA gives you. I think that gets to the root cause of the criticism by some folks.

I also think there's a tendency by newbies to latch onto the HCA as the one determining factor of diamond beauty...when a dealer sees that day after day, and there's quite a bit more to their own selection process, and great stones get rejected again and again because they score a 1.7 instead of a 0.5 I think there's a certain amount of frustration. I think Garry would agree it's a misuse of the tool to do that. The idea that simply plugging some numbers in tells you all you need to know about a stone can be pretty sexy to a newbie.

There is a lot of history that strmrdr refers to that leads to some of this animosity...he makes a very valid point, let sleeping dogs lie

.

Edited to add: Al, you're right, the discussion hasn't gone bad yet

, and it's certainly a valid question.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 3/22/2004 10:28:22 AM noobie wrote:

I'm interested in views and discussions of the HCA and why some people have varying views of it's use. ----------------

Actually, this would be a good one - if the chat can be done without WWIV starting up.

Among many other thigs, it was the presence of this tool that drew me into this forum. It appered as a brilliant idea to give buyers a readily usable tool as the HCA is: a thoughtful balance between what information typically available to customers and what precise analysis would unreasonably require. I still am amazed at how much information this tool can extract from just a few numbers: there really is allot of experience built into the HCA toy

How buyers use the HCA is yet another thrill. Calling it a "screening tool" seemed very appropriate to me. It must not have been easy to build the thing so that few if any potentially brilliant stones are 'missed' !

Just take the story of the princess cut by Apreciative-of-expertise: there is just not enough information and theoretical analysis on brilliance available for fancy cuts to do the same for them.

Of course, the HCA gives only as good results as the numbers one has - which is not great. This is by no means a surprise.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/22/2004 10:59:49 AM elmo wrote:




I also think there's a tendency by newbies to latch onto the HCA as the one determining factor of diamond beauty...when a dealer sees that day after day, and there's quite a bit more to their own selection process, and great stones get rejected again and again because they score a 1.7 instead of a 0.5 I think there's a certain amount of frustration. I think Garry would agree it's a misuse of the tool to do that. ----------------

And I agree with this wholeheartedly. I've said repeatedly that I personally don't believe a diamond that scores 0.7 is "better" than one that scores 1.7.
Debating whether 0.7 is "better" than 1.4 is like debating is vanilla is better than chocolate.....BOTH are great, it's just a question of what your personal preference is.

I think that most folks here have also consistently said that the HCA is a TOOL, but it's not the be-all, end-all. It's a way to narrow down the field of diamonds that have a greater probability of being well cut, but it doesn't guarantee a diamond's performance (can have great numbers and still be a dog) nor should it be the final determinant.....the buyer's eyes should be.

The HCA isn't a shortcut to picking diamonds without seeing them....they simply help narrow down the field of diamonds to consider. Same with b/scope or any of the other gadgets out there. All are helpful when taken in context, but I believe none should be relied on as a substitute for judging what the buyer's eyes prefer.

Having said that, I think that's where some vendors' issues lie. They may have stones that are indeed beautiful that don't get considered because they score a 2.4, etc.....and I can understand the frustration in that. But my time as a consumer is limited, and I have to apply that time where I think it will bear the most fruit.

There have been several shoppers here who have been on very tight budgets, and folks here have helped them find stones that are VERY well cut, although not ideal. It really depends on what the shoppers' priorities are.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

----------------
The HCA isn't a shortcut to picking diamonds without seeing them....they simply help narrow down the field of diamonds to consider. Same with b/scope or any of the other gadgets out there. -

FWIW, there's a new post over there asking about the "best screening tools for diamonds today". . .should be interesting what those participating there say in response to the HCA.

Michelle

 

[Mara]

The HCA is not the end all to be all. It's a screening tool, one tool of many, that WILL help you determine the basic performance of a stone. I would LOVE to see someone post a stone that gets a 5.5 on the HCA with all it's numbers, pictures, ideal scope images, diam calc etc and show me that it's really a top performer and the HCA is entirely wrong. Doubtful that would happen. Stones that score 5.5 on the HCA score that way for a reason.




However, if the HCA scores a stone 2.5 then yes it should still be considered, why not. But if another stone, competitive or not and similarly priced, scores 1.5 and the images, numbers, etc supported that number, I would plunk my $10k down on the 1.5 stone in a heartbeat over the 2.5. But I'd buy the 2.5 over the 5.5. Everything is relative, I don't really think a decision should be made until you have more information if possible. But if absolutely all you have is some numbers, angles, and the HCA...I would utilize that to the best of its ability to assist in an educated decision. Nothing beats the eyes...but many virtual transactions don't have that luxury and some people are comfortable with going on limited information.




Some of the bad blood over on DT tends to permeate Pscope..unfortunately. Personally I think that the bitterness shown by some of the posters over there speaks for itself. Immaturity is never attractive. To re-name someone's creation the Nut Advisor is incredibly disrespectful. Vendors should know better than to behave so unprofessionally, I wonder how many customers and sales are being driven away by a bad, bitter attitude.




It's also ironic that some of the same vendors that denounce PScope and/or HCA tend to troll these board silently, emailing people here on why their stones may be better and/or not to trust the HCA. Sounds fair? I don't think so.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

="padding-bottom:0;marginTop:0;marginBottom:0;">----------------

----------------[/quote]


hmmmm. . .you don't say? Facinatingly enough, there's now a new thread started over there as to why the HCA doesn't work!

lol


Michelle

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This chart shows the stones with 56% tables that scored HCA below 2 in red.
(Since the chart was made I have adjusted the scores and the shallow combinations have been more harsly judged).

HCA is free

It has resulted in more vendors giving more info on stones

I have not proposed it as a lab grading system, but it does work pretty well - the only people who have had a problem with it seem to have gone out of their way to find the problem stones. It provides some problems for vendors who do not like requests for sarin scans, and a certain appraiser who thinks it could reduce his business. Tuff luck

I have not heard the same people who do not like HCA bad mouth the AGS system?

This chart shows all the relevant research results (best guesses of my interpretations) from recent years.

The HCA results also align with Ideal-Scope results - that is mainly how the system was worked out.

Plenty of detractors have criticised the Ideal-Scope too. good luck to them I say - and they might like to read the AGS research paper and see what AGS are doing with colored reflector technology? http://www.gemology.ru/cut/english/optical/index.htm
And funny that the GIA employed Al Gilbertson for their ailing research team - when Al's background is the inventor of a multi colored Ideal-scope type viewer.

But please folks - enough. Does it matter?

 

[mike04456]

Arguments about cut grading are a lot like arguments about evolution. There are strong opinions on both sides and a lot of misrepresentation of scientific results. Many of the opinions are the result of threats to vested interests.




Remember that cut quality is the biggest remaining source of profit margin for retailers. You can't sell a K-SI2 as a "perfect blue-white" diamond anymore, but you can still charge top prices for badly cut stones because most consumers don't know any better. So cut grading--from any source--is a threat to the vendor who wants to exploit customer trust in their judgment as to what looks good and what things are worth.




Current cut science is still in its infancy, and there is a long way to go. But most of the attacks on it strike me as stemming from concerns about lost prestige and lost profit margins, not bad science.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/22/2004 2:44:06 PM LawGem wrote:



Remember that cut quality is the biggest remaining source of profit margin for retailers. You can't sell a K-SI2 as a 'perfect blue-white' diamond anymore, but you can still charge top prices for badly cut stones because most consumers don't know any better. So cut grading--from any source--is a threat to the vendor who wants to exploit customer trust in their judgment as to what looks good and what things are worth.


----------------

VERY well said, LG! I've highlighted the crux of what I think the issue really is in red.

Some of the most vicious detractors of the HCA now are the same vendors who've been saying for years "let US look at the stone and WE'LL tell you if it's good." Now that the "great and powerful Oz behind the curtain" charade isn't working, they don't know what to do.

Increasingly, consumers are saying "No, I'd rather we BOTH look at the stone and determine if it's what I want." It's not smart consumerism to rely solely on the opinion/evaluation of the person who stands to profit......but until recently, customers had no choice.

Those vendors who are skilled salespeople.....and truly passionate about diamonds....have recognized that these tools have ignited an interest/passion in the consumer. The consumer (who previously couldn't be dragged kicking and screaming into a technical discussion about diamonds) now WANTS to know more.

That equals a prime opportunity for a GOOD vendor to explain the benefits AND limitations of all the tools and really earn the customer's respect.

Vendors who are fearful of change and loss of perceived power....they are going to be the losers. They can denounce the "new math" from behind the curtain all they want, but it only sounds hollow and desperate.

 

[derekinla]

Good points! As tools, the HCA, the Bscope, the Isee2 machine, the Idealscope etc.. all have their strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. Testing results and scores are not black and white. For the internet consumer, such tools can provide potentially useful information to screen and narrow down prospective stones. They are surrogate markers of visual performance and are therefore NOT a substitute for final visual confirmation. Consumers who frequent diamond discussion forums such as Pricescope and Diamondtalk need to realize that vendors that post and contribute are also in the business to sell diamonds. They have their individual agendas and priorities. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that vendors will promote their products according to the information available and unique to their business in an effort to distinguish themselves from their competitors. A healthy dose of skepticism balanced with an open mind will serve consumers well when trying to navigate all of the information involved in an internet purchase. I would say that for a vendor to dismiss the HCA as the “nut advisor” is highly unprofessional and probably no different than Fred Cuellar saying your diamond is “warped”. Does this come as any surprise? When you walk into a Honda dealership and ask the Honda sales rep what he thinks of Toyota’s VVT-i variable valve timing technology compared to Honda’s VTEC, what do you think he’s going to say?

 

[Serg]

----------------
On 3/21/2004 6:05:04 PM noobie wrote:

I’ve learned so much in the last few weeks here; it’s been amazing.In my quest for more knowledge, I came across the Diamond Talk Forum.I noticed a few things that were a bit peculiar.

There seems to be a fair bit of criticism of the HCA.It’s referred to as the “Nut Advisor”.They seem to say that it is not really a useful tool and that buying diamonds on-line with specifications and analyses is somewhat foolish.It seems to be a thinly veiled dig at some of the vendors here such as GOG, who provides extraordinary detail on their diamonds.They say don’t trust the numbers. There is also a thread showing that a diamond with an AGS 0 ideal cut that did not perform well on the Brilliance Scope.The lesson was supposed to be that an AGS 0 ideal cut can still perform poorly.I think we all know that here. However, when I looked at the certificate I noticed that the crown and pavilion angles were 35.5 and 41.2 respectively.Now, I’m no expert, but I’ve learned enough, through reading posts, about the too steep and deep crown and pavilion angles effect to recognize that stone could be trouble. Combined with a 62.5 depth, 55 table yielded a HCA of 4.4!

These views of “ beware on numbers” seem to be propagated by two dominant vendors on the forum.

Also, the posts to view ratio is quite low.There seem to be a large number of views, a large number of members and visitors, but relatively few posts.The discussion does not seem to be as dynamic as it is here as well.

What gives?

----------------

Both positions are correct. It is two points of view on one subject.
From one side HCA is better than AGS, HRD, GIA systems.
From other side parametrical approach can not be good.
Glass is half-full and half-empty.