|
Why the HCA doesn't work
For the last few years, there has been a system that claims to give
visual performance of diamonds it never sees based on punching in a
few numbers which are then spit back out as supposedly accurate visual
results?!
Some consumers may have become familiar with this since it is preached
as gospel on a particular forum that markets this system. I will give
you some of the reasons why this system does not work in giving accurate
visual performance of diamonds.
1. First and most obviously, the diamond is never *seen*, so how can
visual results be given? They can't. No gemological laboratory or professional
would ever render opinions, and especially visual opinions, on something
that it never sees. It starts off inaccurate from the get go. This should
be common sense.
2. It is relying on mathematical external averages of only a portion
of the diamond that it is supposedly giving visual results of? An average
crown angle, pavilion angle, table and total depth cannot render the
total visual possiblility of a diamond. There are 57 facets on a round
brilliant diamond to begin with. The total external overall picture
of the diamond is not even taken into account. Even if it did, it would
not matter because the physics of light passing through a diamond and
returning to the eye for maximum brilliance cannot be summarized using
average measurements by a simplistic formula that is alleged to cover
the "visual truth" over a wide spectrum of diamonds. This
is so obvious with just a little bit of thought. There is an almost
uncountable number of beams of light entering a diamond through each
facet of the stone. How can any tool even approximate the visual "beauty"
of a diamond when it does not take into account all the facets the beams
of light enter from? Let alone the incredible path light takes as it
bounces from facet to facet? One of the benefits of cutting a diamond
by hand is that the cutter analyzes the diamond while it is being cut
to determine how the light reflection is really working on that stone.
And he makes adjustments as he goes along.
3. Facet size, length, and placement are something that also affect
how a diamond will visually perform. The system does not even take these
into consideration. Main facets and minor facets can vary in how they
are placed and their shape, size and length can vary too. There is nothing
in a mathematical formula that can cover this. There are infinite possiblities.
Diamonds must be *seen*.
4. Sarin machines are not that accurate in themselves, and readings
can vary on the same machine as well as different machines. It is not
unlikely to have several different readings from the same sarin and
other sarins can have a larger variance. This in and of itself makes
it impossible to rely on numbers to give us *visual* results. External
measurements do not provide *visual* results.
5. There is no control where the numbers come from. There are no laboratory
conditions that would keep the results consistent from one source. Sarins
are being provided from numerous sources and will not be consistent.
They could even be from different stones for that matter. So this format
is not reliable, the numbers could come out of thin air for all they
know. So how can visual results be given? They can't.
6. There are many ways to cut a beautiful diamond. Diamonds are not
Sony TV's. Light return and beauty are not something that can be predicted
soley on numerical formulas. Many diamonds can have different facet
arrangements and fall out of the so called "ideal numerical"
and produce equivalent or greater light performance than some that are
"ideal numerical".
7. Every diamond is individual and the cutters who turn the raw earth
into a sparkling gem are individuals themselves. Like artists, they
all have a different approach. This is one reason why diamonds are not
something where one is identical to the next.
8. The HCA assumes that a diamond is perfectly symmetrical much like
a computer rendering. This is not the case with diamonds. All the crown
angles and pavilion angles are not identical. They do have variances
and are not cut out of a cookie cutter. They are done by hand for the
most part.
9. Worth repeating. Paper and numbers cannot give or express the visual
or potential visual beauty of a diamond. Most in the industry don't
buy sight unseen. There are many stones that can sound great on paper
and can just be average in visual performance.
10. It is theoretical and not supported by industry authorities. Much
like a drug that was not approved by the FDA. It has many unspoken side
effects. It really shouldn't be on the market for consumers to use as
some judgement of visual cut quality, or base buying decisions on. There
are many things on the web that aren't true, so keep that in mind. Test
the facts and see if they hold water. This is mainly for consumers to
review so that they can maintain a common sense approach to buying a
diamond. There are some on the web that will try to convince you otherwise
in their marketing efforts to have some magic bean calculator that will
render visual opinions on something it doesn't see. There is no one
on the net that can give you results or accurate opinions on how a diamond
looks with a few numbers and without *seeing* it. Think about that.
|
