You have to see this.....

[joeysdad]

I''m not trying to continue to stir up controversy, but I thought people should see this link...straight off the DT home page.

Here

Don''t get mad at me Cut Nut...I''m in your camp (even though I''m just an uneducated consumer)

Leonid...feel free to delete this if you don''t think it appropriate.

 

[aljdewey]

See, the thing is this: some of the arguments that Brad is presenting against the H&A are baseless because they are moot arguments in the first place.

"The HCA doesn't take into account fancy diamonds"......*so*? It never claimed to work with that, so that's a completely moot criticism. That's like saying "This piece of Windows software is crap because it doesn't work on my MacIntosh computer".

The argument that dealers don't use it either is lame and ridiculous. Of *course* dealers don't use it.....it's not intended for them! It would be way too time consuming for a dealer to sit and enter info on 1000 stones in a parcel. Dealers DO, though, eliminate dogs based on half of the HCA info - the table/depth. For dealers, that's *their* first-string cut method. Then they view each of the diamonds remaining, and they do their *second* round cut eliminating stones that don't look good. By the argument that dealers don't use it.....should I then assume that a RAP sheet is of no use to a vendor just because *I* don't use one?

No, the HCA it doesn't take into account the minor facet arrangement, etc, etc. and it assumes averages and a medium girdle, blah, blah. It's not meant to definitely prove a diamond is beautiful.....it doesn't evaluate the minor facet arrangements. People aren't supposed to use the HCA tool to "pick" a diamond without considering all of the other data.

Think of the HCA as a first-round draft tool, similar to draft picks in sports. It uses arbitrary cutoffs to help narrow the field. If you were trying to build a football team out of 3000 potential applicants, you'd start by eliminating those with more than X sacks, less than X completed passes, less than X yards driven, etc. It's possible that this criteria will send a player through to the second round of cuts....at which time it will be discovered that he's injured and not likely to be a big contributor (minor facets), or that he's not a good team player but more of a rogue individual player (wide variance in girdle). *Those* elements will unlikely be uncovered during the closer scrutiny of the second-round.

It's also possible that the criteria might eliminate the odd player during the first-round who has *fantastic* secondary considerations - injury-free, good team motivator (minor facets), etc. That's unfortunate, but it's an accepted slim margin of error that focuses on the rule, not the exception to the rule.

It's not a "selection" tool, it's an "elimination" tool, and it's not perfect (nor did it ever claim to be). It is intended to be used *at the consumer level* (more on that in a sec) to help eliminate stones that are *unlikely* to perform well.

Every rule has exceptions, so yes, from time to time, it may eliminate a stone that performs well, and it may not eliminate stones that are later discarded because they don't perform well in spite of the solid numbers. *So what?* I'm not out there looking for the needle-in-the-haystack, defies-all-the-odds oddball stone....I'm looking for a way to concentrate my efforts.

Brad's zeal comes from his refusal to acknowledge what the actual intent of the HCA is. It's not intended to "guarantee" a diamond is beautiful. It's not intended to be utilized as the "deciding factor". It's intent is pretty simple.....to use as a first-string elimination tool. That's IT....it makes no other promises, and criticisms about other things it doesn't do are just inane.

If I were a betting woman, I'd suspect that Brad has lost a few sales on beautiful diamonds to customers who said "yes, but it doesn't score 1.5" on the HCA score, so I don't want it." I'm sure that must be frustrating, but that doesn't mean the HCA doesn't have some value or that one should throw out the baby with the bathwater. It means that he would have to spend a bit of time educating why it's a limited tool.....but of course, that would require finesse that Brad quite clearly doesn't possess.

 

[strmrdr]

#@#%! %%#!% %#%!%# %#@!%#%!%%$^$#@!#%!$

Comment bleeped out as to not start the war back up.

 

[Nicrez]

I can't believe anyone would take the time out of their sad pathetic day to write something that stupid. Their points didn't address HOW the HCA worked and HOW they think it is incapable of determining a diamonds beauty...Note that each point was about how diamonds are cut, and most points weren't even valid!!




Do they honestly believe that people use HCA as a GOD reference, and not a TOOL?!

Dear Lord, I was so mad I wanted to write them a scathing e-mail. Gary, I think your tool has been helpful in that so many people who know very little can get a more accurate account of how close they need to be to certain numbers to get a better performing stone. it helps them weed out the uglies, and for FREE!




Maybe it's just me, but I would NEVER buy from DBOF and I would NEVER recommend them based on that page alone! Why do they need to write that if they are just trying to sell their "uniquely cut" stones which are most likely dogs in the HCA system?

Totally unecessary to be so negative and proactively bashing a system that obviously is popular with people for it's usefulness...I guess fear of losing uninformed customers drives a person to spend time writing drivel like that!!!

 

[mike04456]

Brad has certain "issues."




Let's leave it at that and not start up another flamewar, okay, folks?

 

[Daniela]

Joeysdad,

I clicked on the link you gave. That's not a link to the DT homepage, that's a link to the DBOF homepage! Holy crap!

Don't you guys think that it's kind of a Fred Cueller-esque scare tactic? Does that actually bring in customers or just scare them away? How weird.

 

[joeysdad]

there was a blinking box in the top right hand corner of the DT home page that said Why the HCA Doesn't Work...clicking that box sent you to the DBOF website (the link I posted)

 

[MichelleCarmen]

----------------
Maybe it's just me, but I would NEVER buy from DBOF and I would NEVER recommend them based on that page alone!

Same here! Having that crap on the front page of their web site demonstrates EXTREME immaturity and flat out pettiness. I'd NEVER conduct business with a company that's so low that they'd have to resort to bashing a diamond performance tool rather than just stick with positive promotion of their own goods and services.

It's flat out amazing that companies selling THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars worth of diamonds per month would even waste their time with high-school-style gossip and tactics.

Michelle

 

[pqcollectibles]

A truly saavy business person would choose to spend their time more wisely.

Instead of wasting time tearing down others, ANY Vendor should spend their time building up their own business.

When you sling mud, who gets dirty??!!

 

[strmrdr]

There is an old saying:
Never wrestle in the mud with a pig you will just get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.

It needs to be applied here.
It is quite clear that some parties wont let a simple matter like logic interfere with their fun.
So take the fun out of it and just ignore them.
They will either go away or get stupid and cross the line into libel as they try and get a reaction then you sick your lawyer on them.

another old internet saying:
Dont feed the Trolls.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 3/26/2004 4:40:08 PM pqcollectibles wrote:

A truly saavy business person would choose to spend their time more wisely.

Instead of wasting time tearing down others, ANY Vendor should spend their time building up their own business.

When you sling mud, who gets dirty??!!

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

I can not concur more. I, too, would not do business with them; but, I figured that out quite a while ago.

 

[Kamuelamom]

Wow, I'm just speechless.

 

[valeria101]

Well... if the HCA would be that useless, why would one go to such length?

Just one more argument about whether consumers should handle the same info or analysis tools as the business... be it Sarin, cut evaluation tools, what not. This is probably the key of the debate: it is in theory, so I am not at all surprised. Just people making a living from asymmetric information - like my doctor, and myself at lest sometimes. Oh well...

 

[mhtv]

"That's unfortunate, but it's an accepted slim margin of error that focuses on the rule, not the exception to the rule."

it is NOT a "slim margin of error", but a strong likelihood that the HCA will eliminate diamonds that are better than the diamonds it includes. this is very bad for consumers. it is is also completely unnecessary. what hca CLAIMS to do can be easily achieved successfully by other, VALID methods.

the HCA being both bad AND unnecessary is a GREAT reason for Brad's strong interest in warning consumers.

it's ironic that a forum supposedly for consumer protection and information seems to have attracted contributors who criticize someone for trying to warn and inform consumers.

and many of the "criticisms" are nothing more than personal attacks against Brad. i sure hope this thread is not indicative of the nature of most pricescope members.

 

[pricescope]

Mhtv:

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

... strong likelihood that the HCA will eliminate diamonds that are better than the diamonds it includes. this is very bad for consumers. it is is also completely unnecessary. what hca CLAIMS to do can be easily achieved successfully by other, VALID methods.
----------------

HCA' background is known and published. Do you have scientific facts to back up your statement ot it is rather emotional?

Quote from Garry's post:

-------
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.
--------------

HCA disclaimer:

-------
Even though HCA grades cut more effectively than systems like the AGS, it does not yet factor in symmetry and minor facets. Having found a diamond that scores well, you should employ an expert appraiser to examine the stone. If you decide not to, then at least compare the diamond to others and/or view it through an ideal-scope.

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.

Many diamonds with excellent scores may not be traditional 'ideal cuts' but we believe their value will rise once the GIA establishes its cut standard.
This system is being continually fine-tuned and results may change without notice.
-------

Nuff said

 

[fire&ice]

and many of the 'criticisms' are nothing more than personal attacks against Brad. i sure hope this thread is not indicative of the nature of most pricescope members.----------------

MHTV writes:
"and many of the 'criticisms' are nothing more than personal attacks against Brad. i sure hope this thread is not indicative of the nature of most pricescope members."

Oh really??? Point me to a post that attacks Brad personally? Do you mean that by pointing out that Brad uses names like "nut advisor" or that his demeanor is quite hostile are personal attacks.

Your last statement is so bogus and quite the contrary to what is going on. It is Brad that has gotten quite personal in his attacks. Look in the mirror

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 3/27/2004 8:51:54 AM mhtv wrote:





'That's unfortunate, but it's an accepted slim margin of error that focuses on the rule, not the exception to the rule.'

it is NOT a 'slim margin of error', but a strong likelihood that the HCA will eliminate diamonds that are better than the diamonds it includes. this is very bad for consumers. it is is also completely unnecessary. what hca CLAIMS to do can be easily achieved successfully by other, VALID methods.

the HCA being both bad AND unnecessary is a GREAT reason for Brad's strong interest in warning consumers.

it's ironic that a forum supposedly for consumer protection and information seems to have attracted contributors who criticize someone for trying to warn and inform consumers.

and many of the 'criticisms' are nothing more than personal attacks against Brad. i sure hope this thread is not indicative of the nature of most pricescope members.
----------------

The world is FLAT......the world is FLAT......the world is FLAT......

zzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[caratgirl]

Well, it's really too bad...I had been trying to stay out of this entirely, but I am quite disappointed in the DT threads, DBOF and DBL in particular.

When I wanted to purchase my stone in FL, while on vacation, in order to get the tax break, I called up DBOF. They were very nice and located a stone (not from their stock) that had GIA specs that I liked a lot. Before I had them call it in, I asked Jan to get the HCA score for me, since I didn't have my laptop available (in the car). She very nicely checked the HCA score (1.2). Based on that, I had them call in the stone for me to visually check out. Since I didn't trust my own eyes (it really is different when you are buying your own stone!), before the purchase, I asked whether or not they both liked the stone, then got the BS analysis. The BS results actually clinched my decision.

So, really, if the HCA score had not been good, I would never have gone down the road to this purchase. Would I have missed out on a great stone? Absolutely. Would I have found another eventually that fit all of my criteria? More than likely. I personally think that this will just hurt DBOF's business, since they get a lot of free publicity on this site. Such is life.

 

[mhtv]

"........This system is being continually fine-tuned and results may change without notice.------- Nuff said"


compared to the actual failings of the hca, the hca's disclaimer is no way even remotely near "nuff said".

perhaps if the disclaimer said "flipping a coin is likely to give more reliable results", THAT MIGHT be "nuff said". and please note the emphasis on "might".

 

[mhtv]

"Oh really??? Point me to a post that attacks Brad personally? "

apparently, you have not read the thread....

and apparently, many contributors pay no heed to forum policy #5:

"Everyone who participates in this forum is "in it together", Treat others the way you wish to be treated. Don’t start flaming or personal attacks. One way to guard against misunderstandings is to read over your response before you post it."

and apparently the moderator is not interested in enforcing this rule.

now, since you asked:


".....but of course, that would require finesse that Brad quite clearly doesn't possess."

"I can't believe anyone would take the time out of their sad pathetic day to write something that stupid."

"maybe it's just me, but I would NEVER buy from DBOF and I would NEVER recommend them based on that page alone!"

"Brad has certain "issues.""

" Having that crap on the front page of their web site demonstrates EXTREME immaturity and flat out pettiness. "

"I, too, would not do business with them; but, I figured that out quite a while ago."

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 3/27/2004 8:51:54 AM mhtv wrote:



it is NOT a 'slim margin of error', but a strong likelihood that the HCA will eliminate diamonds that are better than the diamonds it includes.

[...] what hca CLAIMS to do can be easily achieved successfully by other, VALID methods.

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

I like this Challenge !

First, the 'margin of error' of this tool can be readily determined. Have you tried? To my knowledge, there is no study available to prove this claim. There are known examples of different stones where the HCA fails to identify diamonds with poor optics. These examples have been provided by Garry. Also, there are examples of good stones missed by the HCA (taking into account the lower limit of acceptance at a score of 2). These examples have also been discussed at length on PS. Neither example has provoked resentment since the usage of this tool is well explained and the respective 'misses' are due to the known omissions from HCA's score (minor facets and girdle outline). How many stones like this are out there? As far as I know there is no statistical evidence in this regard. The current sales practice would make it hard for buyers to access large samples of stones with complete descriptions of optical performance.

Of course, sellers can select their stock and sell better information on diamonds using proprietary analysis techniques, patented soft and hardware (Isee2, Bscope, DiamCalc). Buyers who would go to the length to understand the use of the HCA and IdealScope would likely demand such further testing.

Among all methods of assessing a diamonds optical properties, the HCA and Isccope strike me as the lest expensive. Both tests would cost a buyer about $30 to apply to a stone, plus an hour spent learning the how-to. Would more sophisticated tools fare many times better? Perhaps, perhaps not. But these are never in the hands of buyers. Who is going to set up a private gem lab to become an informed diamond buyer ?

It is by no means obvious to me that the HCA and Iscope inexpensive intro in the appreciation of ideal cut diamonds compete with more technically advanced testing as selling tools.

I a very willing to discuss any statistical evidence of testing bias not accounted for and warned against in the description of the HCA usage. Since my hobby is well known, I can comfortably say that I can summon the expertise needed for this beyond my professional use of applied statistics

 

[pricescope]

Mhtv, you didn't unswer the question: "Do you have scientific facts to back up your statement ot it is rather emotional?". Did you read the publications of MSU and GIA on cut study?

If I'm not mistaken, you are from the trade. What is your opinion about current AGS cut grading system?

 

[finerthings]

Ok, to start with, the link that was given at the start of this post is NOT from the DT board. Brad, the author of the anti HCA post, did however write this whole essay and post it on both the DT board and he also announced that he would be posting it on his DBOF web site for consumer education. Lets not start another war here, and misrepresent posts. Let it be.

 

[Mara]

Hee Hee.




The last feeble moans of a dying breed. Almost funny actually.

But...sad at the same time.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Please let it rest folks.
I thank you for the fine support.
Let history be our judges

Lenoid take it down or lock it please.

And lets not try to convert every traditional diamond dealer one by one. They will all listen to, and change, when GIA says they must.