Would you consider buying a diamond that was poorly rated by the HCA?

[Zoologico]

Does it make or break the deal for you?

How do vendors regard this tool for their consumers?

Thanks.

 

[strmrdr]

Depends on the price and If id seen the diamond in person and did a side by side comparison with other well cut diamonds.
I wouldnt buy a diamond I hadnt seen in person with a bad score.

 

[oldminer]

The HCA is an excellent screening device, BUT a person on a budget who prefers a better color versus a better cut, or a larger diamond versus a better cut, might well buy the lower scoring diamond. Internet buyers tend to buy finely cut stones to eliminate the "sight unseen" problem, but B&M customers often choose to buy a less perfectly cut diamond that makes them happy in the overall when price, color, clarity and weight are also considerations......

 

[valeria101]

NO !

 

[fire&ice]

To quote Cutnut:

...buy if the price is right.

 

[oldminer]

To buy if the price is right applies to a dealer...Not a consumer buying one diamond as a cherished gift for someone.

Dealers frequently buy based on price because they know who they have as potential customers. Buying only on price can really be bad for a consumer as they may very likely get a diamond they will not really want to own.

There is far more to a good deal or a bargain than "price", but to a dealer, price may be a very strong factor.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

I've seen many stones which scored poorly on the HCA which I wouldn't hesitate to own or give to my wife.

Many stones which "by the numbers" would make you think they are dogs in actuality can be quite beautiful.

Old european cuts come to mind. By all rights, some of these stones should be Quasimotos, but are Esmareldas instead.

Like Dave mentioned, the HCA is a good tool for internet buyers because it eliminates a lot of hassle in finding a pleasing stone. But a person who has time to examine a lot of stones personally will often find one that breaks all the rules.

 

[Mara]

Nope.




Why? When there are so many other stones out there and even if you are on a budget, you can find something that may not be exactly ideal but still has great numbers and images, and scores well on HCA. I don't know that I have seen one person who didn't come to Pscope and then leave with the diamond they had hoped to find, within their budget most times--even if that budget was tight. They figured out what was important and I don't think one of them said 'well 4+ on the HCA is okay...'. Doesn't have to be super-duper-ideal but I would say that it has to have some minimums IMO.




You have an infinite amount of possibilities out there, the HCA is a valuable screening tool, I would use it in conjunction with other tools, but would not consider a stone that scored poorly. Not if I knew ahead of time what the numbers and scores were, anyway.




My definition of poorly would be something like 3.5+ BTW...an important distinction.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 1/26/2004 1:24:04 PM oldminer wrote:

To buy if the price is right applies to a dealer...Not a consumer buying one diamond as a cherished gift for someone.

---

I thought the HCA was for consumers. I didn't realize that it was a tool for the trade. The quote was taken from the HCA when a stone scored 2 - 3.9.

..Very good. Worth buying if the price is right. I think very good is pretty darn good.

Quite frankly, all day long I would consider a stone in the 2+ range if the price was considerably lower w/ only minimal sight difference - which is quite posssible given the nature of margin of error. And, the leanings of preferences for certain stones. It sure doesn't like OEC's much.

I would venture to guess that all things considered most poorly cut stones would start scoreing higher than 4. That said, I would think one could (for the most part) see a difference in cut quality. But, my little OEC scores close to a four - and sure pleases my eye - just in a different way.

I am a consumer who doesn't buy on price alone. In fact, I would venture that I am in the majority (at least I would hope). I am a consumer that balances price w/ perceived value. While I can appreciate the rarity of a D/IF, it doesn't present the best value to me as the premium paid does not reflect a perceivable visual difference. Same with cut. I don't need ex ex on paper. And, at the end of the day, it's only about what pleases me.

That said, HCA is a good tool when purchasing sight unseen. And, I think quite a few bargins go unnoticed w/ scores in the 2+ range when in fact, they may be more visually pleasing. Unfortunately, that is a tough call when you can not see the stone.

 

[Chrisk327]

i bought a diamond that wasn't in the "Ideal" HCA range. But it wasn't far out.

mine was a 2.7 I think. I made compromises... its not a H&A and symetry is only "good" BUT it does have an exellent idealscope, and a verygood brilliancescope and Isee2 (except the sym). I wouldn't have bought it if i hadn't seen it. It appears to me performancewise, to be close to a H&A.

I think within reason a diamond outside the excellent area if you see the diamond and compare.

Chris

 

[Hest88]

If I were buying a RB and I could afford it, no. Why bother? If I'm not going to have a chance to visually compare it to other diamonds I might as well try to eliminate all the duds I can through the diagostic tools I have available.

 

[roshita]

There is an inherent problem assessing a diamond without seeing it. The complexities of diamond cut, and its effect on light-loss and light-return are difficult to pin down. The HCA and other systems are very helpful in this regard. However, in practice, I have seen diamonds rated lower on the HCA that looked better side by side than some with higher ratings. So, no it will not break the deal, but more information may be called for.

 

[pqcollectibles]

Welcome to the Forum, Russell!!

Hope you'll stay and share your knowledge with folks here!

 

[Zoologico]

While we're on the HCA...

Anyone care to explain the logic behind this statement:

"A score below 2 (Excellent) means you have eliminated known poor performers (more than 95% of all diamonds). 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."

As quoted in:

https://www.pricescope.com/cutadviser.asp

 

[Mara]

Zoo this has been explained a time or two before...but here it is again...




The statement means that YOU may prefer visually a diamond that has a score of 1.5 which is still EX vs a stone that has a 0.5 score which is also EX. The reason being is that the stones may look different in terms of visual. It's hard to gauge on the HCA, but some feel that stones under 0.6 have reduced contrast in the stone. An expert has noted to me that he feels 1.0 HCA is the 'sweet spot'. But logic would lead you to think that the lower HCA score, the better the stone, right? Such as 0.2 would be EXCELLENT..better than 1.5. But that may not be the case. Hence Garry's note.




The jist of it is IMO is that anything under 2.0 is going to be gorgeous. And if you are worried about the possible loss of contrast under 0.6...then stick to a range that makes you feel better. Personally 1.0 is a nice medium for me but I'd be happy with anything from 0.8 to 1.7 or similar most likely.




In the end it's a personal decision.

 

[mike04456]

The HCA is just a tool. I don't think that even Garry has ever said it's the last word on anything. He has been quite forthright, when the subject comes up, that the HCA is a work-in-progress. He's also been clear that it's not exact enough to make distinctions under 2.0--that's all he means with that disclaimer.

 

[Zoologico]

----------------
On 2/24/2004 2:31:44 PM Mara wrote:


Zoo this has been explained a time or two before...but here it is again...


The statement means that YOU may prefer visually a diamond that has a score of 1.5 which is still EX vs a stone that has a 0.5 score which is also EX. The reason being is that the stones may look different in terms of visual. It's hard to gauge on the HCA, but some feel that stones under 0.6 have reduced contrast in the stone. An expert has noted to me that he feels 1.0 HCA is the 'sweet spot'. But logic would lead you to think that the lower HCA score, the better the stone, right? Such as 0.2 would be EXCELLENT..better than 1.5. But that may not be the case. Hence Garry's note.


The jist of it is IMO is that anything under 2.0 is going to be gorgeous. And if you are worried about the possible loss of contrast under 0.6...then stick to a range that makes you feel better. Personally 1.0 is a nice medium for me but I'd be happy with anything from 0.8 to 1.7 or similar most likely.


In the end it's a personal decision.

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

I see.

Thanks.

Now does the score range from 0 to 2 adhere to a relative range between brilliance to fire?

Therefore 1 being a good balance between the two?

Mig

 

[pqcollectibles]

Most of the pros comment on Price Scope that they prefer a score between 0.5 or so and 1.5 or so. Below 0.5 or so and above 1.5 or so, diamonds tend to loose contrast.

 

[phoenixgirl]

By "poorly rated," do you mean a rating of "poor," 8-10? Definitely I would run from a stone like that.

Probably around 3 would be my cut-off. It doesn't have to be perfect, but why buy a stone with angles that you know don't work?

 

[pqcollectibles]

A balance of brilliance, fire, and scinitillation is probably best produced in a Tolkowsky Ideal Cut. A Brilliant Ideal Cut produces more white light. Brilliance comes at the expense of fire. A Firey Ideal Cut produces more fire. Fire comes at the expense of brilliance.

 

[Zoologico]

Now does the score range from 0 to 2 adhere to a relative range between brilliance to fire?

Therefore 1 being a good balance between the two?

Does 0 points toward brilliance while 2 toward fire so that 1 is a good tradeoff?

 

[pqcollectibles]

Simply put, Zoo, diamonds that score between 0 and 2 on the HCA will be among the top 5% performers. Brilliant Ideal Cuts are at one end of the spectrum of crown and pavillion angles combinations. Tolkowsky Ideal Cuts are in the middle of the spectrum of crown and pavillion angles combinations. Firey Ideal Cuts are at the opposite end of the spectrum (from BIC's) of crown and pavillion angles combinations. There's a graph in the Tutorial demonstrating the link between angles combinations and style of cut. Here's the link:

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/ideal.asp

The crown and pavillion angles work together, in a complimentary fashion to create particular types of performance in diamonds.

Which one is best?? BIC, TIC, or FIC?? Only you can decide that. What type of diamond performance pleases your eye?? We cannot tell you that.

 

[Griffin]

I agree with not buying it sight unseen, but if you can look at it there are some real winners out there whose numbers don't add up.

Yesterday I pulled a couple of 1/3 carats that face up clean, dead white, and with very reasonable light return out of a $400/carat lot of Indian cut commercial I1's.
These aren't ideal - the symmetry is a total train wreck. I'd be surprised if both had the right number of facets for that matter, but they look really good for some unknown reason. Of course, the rest of them didn't. You just can't tell.