Advertising vs Reality ... share yours too!

[the_mother_thing]

Just browsing around and something caught my eye. Diamond description reads: “...boasting phenomenal color and clarity along with incredible sparkle and fire.”

So being a good PSer who detects a familiar faint whiff of BS in the air, I go plug the numbers into the HCA, and get this:


I won’t name the vendor (not a PS regular anyway), but they need to spray some Reality Check-scented Febreeze on their jewelry descriptions.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hey MOT!!
Was this a modern RBC?
HCA has a lot of great uses....but sometimes the results are not relevant to a specific stone, or a specific look.
There are many stones that GIA calls "Round Brilliant" which are not cut to look like every other RBC....

I had a 6ct K/SI2 once that scored over 5 on HCA- but the stone was amazing in person.....and that particular stone was indeed a modern round brilliant. Sometimes a stone gets dinged due to things that are not going to make it ugly, per se.....

But in general, you're spot on- there's plenty of advertising jargon that is far from reality.....

 

[OoohShiny]

We need a link to the stone in question, even if just the GIA report, @the_mother_thing lol

 

[the_mother_thing]

@Rockdiamond & @OoohShiny

Ask and ye shall receive! Maybe there is something to this I don’t know/see, but it doesn’t look very good, IMO.

The Report:


The Diamond:


I tried to edit out the setting details just so it’s not linked back to a particular vendor, though again, it’s not one regularly referenced on here.

 

[John P]

The photo setup is honest, in terms of bright areas vs windowing.


Kudos also to DiamCalc.

 

[the_mother_thing]

That is SOOOO cool @John Pollard that you can run/produce that based on the numbers.

So is this diamond what many of us would refer to as a transitional? And that’s why it’s so low on the HCA?

 

[John P]

Transitional makes - those which are a nod to older cutting - tend to have small tables, high crowns and wide pavilion mains.

This is a flattop (that's not an official term btw). I'd wager the starting rough material had obstacles or pique above what's now the table-facet, forcing a shallow crown. To save 1.50+ the cutter went wide at the table and girdle and deep on the pavilion side. That's hypothesis on my part, but it follows conventional logic.

 

[Rockdiamond]

So is this diamond what many of us would refer to as a transitional?

Actually, most would probably refer to it as.....BUTT UGLY

Seriously- no, it does not look like a transitional.......

 

[the_mother_thing]

Thank you both @John Pollard & @Rockdiamond ... so it seems the HCA score here is ‘bang on’?

The setting is pretty but not anything crazy-extraordinary IMO; the price is just shy of $23k in case anyone was curious.

 

[Wewechew]

It looks like a early modern brilliant (looks like my original engagement diamond that was my grandmother's)- ie cut for spread.

 

[Dancing Fire]

This is a flattop (that's not an official term btw). I'd wager the starting rough material had obstacles or pique above what's now the table-facet, forcing a shallow crown. To save 1.50+ the cutter went wide at the table and girdle and deep on the pavilion side. That's hypothesis on my part, but it follows conventional logic.

Yes it is since I coined the term..