发帖回复
查看:12330|回复:28
When you buy via links in posts, huaren.us may earn a commission
Advertisement

关于选钻石的HCA分数的评论-----A Consumers Guide to The HCA----很长,慎入!!

头像
0操作21 #
头像
21 #
0
10-07-08 17:53操作
只看楼主AA分享
In summary.  Viewing the data above on this shallow angled HCA of 1.5, GIA gives it a "Very Good" and AGS gives it a deduction of "5" for light performance with the biggest hit being in way of the "Contrast" metric.  Ie. The diamond lacks contrast.  Interestingly there is a direct correlation with this metric and the DiamCalc metric for "Dark Zone" which was formerly called "Contrast" in prior versions of their software.  We will be making a comparison with both photography and video of this diamond alongside one of the other example stones we've been using in this tutorial, namely the 1.89ct G SI1 with an HCA over 2.0.

Perhaps this is the first time I'm bringing up the DiamCalc software results in this tutorial but we have been noting correlations between DiamCalc results and visual observation for a while now. Earlier last year (in 2005) when we did our review of the GIA Cut Grading System we noted a direct correlation between the various GIA Cut Grades and the Contrast metric in the DiamCalc software. Results that can also be seen virtually through the DiamCalc/Gem Advisor software "Office Lighting View".  Below is a demonstration of the comparison we'll be making with photography & video except here are the DiamCalc results.

 

DiamCalc Metric 1.89ct w/HCA >2 1.73ct w/HCA of 1.5
Office Lighting
DiamCalc Cut Quality Results
(note the lower "dark zone" score. This is the red flag we see which correlates to the AGS Contrast metric)

 

Note when you compare the 1.89ct with the 1.73ct in the simulated "Office Lighting" you can note more areas of darkness and less bright reflections in the 1.73ct.  Here are those graphics scaled down. for a side by side comparison.  The diamond on the left is what makes GIA/AGS' top grade for Light Performance while the diamond on the right fails in both systems for top optics (and for good reason we believe).

Here is a photograph of the same 2 diamonds taken under the GIA DiamondDock simulated diffuse daylight view.  Can you pick out which diamond is which based on the graphics above?  I think  it'll be easy for ya. ;)  The comparison of the DiamCalc Office Lighting View and the DiamondDock simulated diffuse daylight view (live) we have found to have the closest corelations when it comes to real world observations of the optical characteristic of brightness.  At least these have been my observations.

Here's the same graphic blow up to show more detail.



To view a video comparison of these 2 diamonds under simulated diffuse daylight click here.

Note: While the shallow angled diamond above suffers in diffuse day lighting environments (both simulated and natural) the diamond does happen to excel in direct/spot lighting environments (exhibiting fire/scintillation characteristics).  In our professional opinion, for a diamond to be considered as having top optics or Ideal/Excellent light performance it must excel not only in spot lighting but also natural day lighting as well.
 

头像
0操作22 #
头像
22 #
0
10-07-08 17:53操作
只看楼主AA分享
The HCA "Spread" factor is extremely restricting.

On the HCA score one of the 4 factors it looks at is "spread".  Spread relates to how big the diamond looks for its given measurements and has a direct relationship to the "total depth percentage" measurement of a diamond.  Put more simply, the shallower a diamond is cut the larger it looks.  Conversely the deeper it is cut the smaller it will look in its face up appearance.  While it is true that the shallower cut diamond will larger it will look for its weight, the HCA penalizes many diamonds that have a perfectly normal spread for their carat weight. 

For a basic understanding of spread, I've provided in the graphic below is a great example of how total depth % in a round brilliant cut diamond impacts its face up appearance.  Both of the diamonds in the photograph below weigh exactly the same and are 1.01ct in weight.  The diamond on the left is what is considered a commercial diamond and has a total depth percentage of 64.6%.  The diamond on the right falls in the zenity of GIA Excellent/AGS Ideal and has a total depth percentage of 61.1%

1.01ct w/64.6% depth. 1.01ct w/61.1% depth
While there is a notable difference in the brightness between the 2 diamonds above, what we are noting  here is the visual size difference between the two diamonds. The graphic is blown up to show more detail.  Not only is the diamond on the right brighter but it's diameter and visual size is notably larger.  Ie. it has a better spread.  The graphic below is scaled down.

This is a computer generated graphic of the same 2 stones via DiamCalc.
Ok.  Now that we understand spread lets take a closer look at stones that begin to take hits on the HCA.
Advertisement
头像
0操作23 #
头像
23 #
0
10-07-08 17:54操作
只看楼主AA分享
On the HCA diamonds begin to take a hit in spread at a depth percentage of 60.4%. Below is a comparison of 2 diamonds that have identical measurements except for .1% in their total depths on the HCA.  For sake of simplicity I used Tolkowsky ideal proportions (55% table, 40.8 pavilion angles and 34.5 crown angles) only changing the total depth by .1%.



The two most conservative labs grading cut (GIA and AGS) begin to penalize for spread once the depth hits at our around 63% which most consider a reasonable cut off.  Is the HCA being more strict or unreasonable?  In the opinion of most professional's the answer is unreasonable.  There are thousands of beautifully cut diamonds that have depths greater than 60.3% and up to the 62.x% range which are perfectly fine, look the proper size for their weight and are not disproportionate in any way.

Below are simulated graphics akin to the example I used above to show size differences.  The graphics are blow up to the size of roughly a 20ct diamond to help make it easier to see.
Same example as above. 64.6% next to 61.1%.  We can most definitely note the difference in size visually.
This comparison is a diamond with a total depth of 60.3% next to one with 61.1% depth.  No notable difference  in size.
A 60.3% depth alongside a diamond with 62.5% depth.  Perceptible but not easy.

In the trade certain professional's have what they consider to be their "cut offs" and we most certainly have tolerances we abide by regarding the quality of the diamonds we feature and very particular about the cut qualities we deem as worthy to make it into our inventory.  While we respect Garry's personal opinion on the Spread grading in the HCA it is important for the consumer to understand that this is yet another instance where the HCA reflects Garry's personal opinion/interpretation that does not agree with most professional's and more notably does not agree with GIA and AGS' considerations of this feature.  If there were strong merit to it I would not have bothered writing about it but since we get questions from consumers on it I thought it best to address it in this article, especially for those who are being particular about getting 4 Excellent's with an HCA score.

头像
0操作24 #
头像
24 #
0
10-07-08 17:54操作
只看楼主AA分享

Conclusion: There are many instances when the HCA is accurate but there are also many instances when it isn't.  While the HCA is sensitive about eliminating angle combinations that produce leakage under the table (steep/deep angle combos) it doesn't discern or give accurate break points where leakage impacts actual "Total Visual Performance" (ie. when leakage is discernable to the human eyes). So there are angle combinations that take a hit on the HCA (some used in this article) for Total Visual Performance and the leakage is impossible to discern with the eyes and in some cases even hard to discern under reflector based technologies such as the IdealScope/DiamXray/ASET .
    On the flip side the HCA is not sensitive to shallow angled combinations but reflects Garry's personal preference towards these diamonds.  There are shallow angled combinations that are more attractive than others however when it comes to actual "Total Visual Performance" the HCA doesn't do that good of a job separating amongst these shallow angled combos and the actual break points where shallow angles actually do impact face up appearance.  This is particularly true regarding diamond optics in daylight environments which happen to be some of the most common viewing environments people find themselves in daily.
    When a diamond falls within the threshold of GIA Ex and AGS Ideal for "Light Performance" and the HCA gives it a score over 2.0 we are finding  the HCA to be in error each time.  As daily buyers and traders of some of the finest diamonds in the world, it's neat to know what the HCA score is (and  many of our diamonds score =< 2.0) however we never let it dictate our purchasing decisions and neither should it be for the end consumer.  When you have the tools and expertise of a professional's live analysis, this takes precedence over a prediction any day.  Considering the amount of instances where diamonds with scores > 2 are more beautiful than many combo's with diamonds that score < 2 we suggest the following procedure to the amateur seeking to use this tool in their purchasing decision if indeed they are seeking beautifully cut diamonds.

  • Firstly seek out GIA graded "Excellent" cuts = > January 2006 or AGS Ideal Cuts accompanied with the "new" grading Reports that take "Light Performance" into account => June 2005.  AGS, at this time is issuing both older and newer Lab Reports upon the request of the manufacturer so if looking for AGS graded diamonds look for the ones with the "Light Performance" metric.
  • If the GIA Ex or AGS Ideal scores under a 2.0 HCA no prob.
  • If the GIA Ex or AGS Ideal scores over a 2.0 don't be quick to "weed it out".  There are angle combinations that score over a 2.0 that are just fine.
  • On a personal note, we use the most stringent criteria for determining top optics in diamonds and 99% of our inventory falls within the zenith of GIA and AGS top grade for light performance.  If you're going to deviate away from either labs specs for their top grade we recommend seeing it alongside one that does especially if you're going to put heavy emphasis into a particular technology (HCA, Ideal-Scope, BrillianceScope, etc.).
    • For further study: About a year ago we got our hands on a diamond that was a GIA Excellent but scored a 3.8 on the HCA that most observers (90% out of 30 observers) preferred over a stone scoring a 1.0 on the HCA.  For more on that here is the article.

Best regards,
Jonathan Weingarten
Gemologist, Good Old Gold
The Ultimate Diamond Information Site

头像
0操作25 #
头像
25 #
0
10-07-08 21:21操作
只看TAAA分享
mark~                    
Advertisement
头像
0操作26 #
头像
26 #
0
10-07-12 12:43操作
只看TAAA分享

辛苦啦,good post!

头像
0操作27 #
头像
27 #
0
10-11-09 13:26操作
只看TAAA分享
 还是不太懂,2分之内都是excellent,但是最好的是多少分呢?1.1吗?是怎么算分的呢?
头像
0操作28 #
头像
28 #
0
12-06-13 16:39操作
只看TAAA分享
 帮闺蜜看了个戒指,Tiffany的,算了下指数为4.6。。。这可如何是好
头像
0操作29 #
头像
29 #
0
16-05-11 19:55操作
只看TAAA分享
我的天 也太。。。长了吧、、、谢谢LZ分享
发帖回复
查看:12330|回复:28
Advertisement
打开收藏板块打开个人中心
边缘侧滑返回