Are H&A stones only for symbolic/psychological reasons?

[Jefffy]

Just been doing some reading about H&A stones the last day or so.

Would I be right in thinking that there is no way to see the hearts after the diamond is mounted in a ring? They are only visible from the bottom right? And even if the stone is loose, can the hearts be seen with just a magnifier? Or are they only observable with one of the special viewers?

I assume that when mounted the arrows can be seen from above even after mounting?

I looked at the potential H&A potential chart on this page:
http://heartsandarrows.com/hearts-arrows-diamond-ideal-cut-dna.aspx

I note that the diamond I recently ordered fits within the green bold section of the table - so going by that alone it could be H&A. I don't intend at all to reject the stone I've ordered on the basis that its not H&A - I'm more asking out of curiosity - but I'm wondering if there is any bare eye noticable difference between H&A and non-H&A stones that reside within the same cell of that above linked table?

Thanks

 

[stone-cold11]

H&A is optical symm. Averaged numbers are useless in the determination of whether a stone is H&A or not.

To view the hearts image, it will have to be seen with a H&A viewer from the pavilion. Arrows is easier to see, just need enough obstruction and some practice, viewable even when mounted.

There are some arguments here, that there may be slight visible improvement in performance in the scintillation and fire aspect between a well cut stone and a well cut stone with H&A symm, but no definite proof/study on that.

 

[slg47]

Just been doing some reading about H&A stones the last day or so.

Would I be right in thinking that there is no way to see the hearts after the diamond is mounted in a ring? They are only visible from the bottom right? And even if the stone is loose, can the hearts be seen with just a magnifier? Or are they only observable with one of the special viewers?

I assume that when mounted the arrows can be seen from above even after mounting?

I looked at the potential H&A potential chart on this page:
http://heartsandarrows.com/hearts-arrows-diamond-ideal-cut-dna.aspx

I note that the diamond I recently ordered fits within the green bold section of the table - so going by that alone it could be H&A. I don't intend at all to reject the stone I've ordered on the basis that its not H&A - I'm more asking out of curiosity - but I'm wondering if there is any bare eye noticable difference between H&A and non-H&A stones that reside within the same cell of that above linked table?

Thanks

this is a good question...and like Stone says...no definitive study/proof.

you should be able to see the arrows (try leaning over your stone). also note that the arrows will appear more 'silvery' than black (sometimes vendors put pictures of stones in which the arrows appear dark black but I have not found this to be the case IRL)

 

[crbl999]

H&A does not improve the performance of a stone. It just means that it has excellent/ideal optical symmetry and high cut precision.

 

[decodelighted]

Some folks, myself included, don't really like the precision cut of H&As -- they can be harsh and cold. I prefer a wonkier stone with personality.

 

[Christina...]

agree!

 

[oldminer]

A round, btilliant cut diamond could potentially not have hearts or arrows, yet be perfectly symmetric. It would not look like a H&A diamond, but it might also have a very fine appearance and could also have excellent light performance and light return. H&A is just one of many ways to cut a diamond, but it is a concept that people have bought into and a marketing success. No one has spent as much effort marketing a different version of cutting, but never say "never".

 

[Querada]

This is my first post here and I am curious about this topic as well.

It looks like the original poster wants validation for their generic stone and are asking if if it should be considered equivalent in appearance to any H&A stone by reason that its average proportions fit a chart he linked to.
Seems like a logical argument but is it a fair general assumption?

If a stone has proportions that could be HA by that chart does that mean it is well cut?
Does that mean it would be considered a Tolkowsky Ideal cut?
Does it mean that is has ideal optical symmetry?

Is the advice here in this thread that any generic that has proportions in that chart that fit H&A is equivalent to any other H&A stone and they should just save money by buying generic?

 

[slg47]

This is my first post here and I am curious about this topic as well.

It looks like the original poster wants validation for their generic stone and are asking if if it should be considered equivalent in appearance to any H&A stone by reason that its average proportions fit a chart he linked to.
Seems like a logical argument but is it a fair general assumption?


If a stone has proportions that could be HA by that chart does that mean it is well cut?
most likely. an idealscope image would tell more about the diamond.
Does that mean it would be considered a Tolkowsky Ideal cut?
not sure how you are defining Tolkowsky ideal cut
Does it mean that is has ideal optical symmetry?
no.

Is the advice here in this thread that any generic that has proportions in that chart that fit H&A is equivalent to any other H&A stone and they should just save money by buying generic?

this is a good question...as far as 'equivalent' to H&A...I think the best thing to do is look with your own eyes. It depends on what you are calling "H&A" vs. "non H&A". whether or not there will be a visual difference...still up for debate. see this thread if you are interested in more discussion
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-vs-non-h-a-is-there-a-visual-difference.152720/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-vs-non-h-a-is-there-a-visual-difference.152720/[/URL]
another thing to note is that many of the H&A stones come with attractive buyback/upgrade policies which is something to consider while shopping

 

[Karl_K]

The most important thing about any RB cut diamond with regards to returning light to the eye is the crown and pavilion and lower half angle compliment each other.
That is fundamental and by far the most important aspect without that nothing else is going to help.
Anything else is secondary to that.
You can cheat a little with painting and digging of the crown or pavilion but it is going to cost you in the causing varying degrees of muddy scintillation.

Now lets say you have a diamond that the crown/pavilion/lower half all compliment each other with min painting/digging .
You are close to getting everything you can from that diamond.
The final little bits are optical symmetry and tightness of the angles.
With both I feel there is a point where it becomes a matter of craftsmanship rather than performance.
However where that point is at, brings on a huge debate.

Personally I love the craftsmanship aspect!

 

[oldminer]

Great reply, Karl.

I think that one could "craft" a round diamond extremely well without obtaining a H&A effect if one did not want to have it happen. As it currently stands, there would be no sound reason to make such an effort for what amounts to no audience for such a stone. We have very good parameters to base H&A judgments on, but if a different approach was taken, then we'd have few parametric tools at hand that would safely confirm fine craftsmanship. We don't have those standards agreed upon at this time while we do have agreed standards for H&A styles.