Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Are the hearts & arrows cut diamonds just a fad?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Date: 7/8/2005 3:40:45 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
Hi Everyone- It''s a brand new day!


Dancing- it''s a great thing you''ve started to educate yourself on diamonds- how could you have paid over $5000 for a stone that looked like that one?

And it''s also great that it''s such a stunning diamond now!
Click to expand...
David
i was told that a 60/60 Russian cut was the best.don''t get me wrong,i''m not saying that all 60/60 cuts are ugly,just that mine was. i don''t see enough of them to give an opinion.
 
Date: 7/8/2005 4:25:26 PM
Author: muzzman

In Hong Kong, H&A’s are promoted as if they were the best performing of diamonds, and shops keep H&A viewers in the display windows so that passersby can look through the glass from outside to see the pattern. There’s a Chinese predilection for the number 8, so the visual manifestation makes a big impact.

It’s a common practice for merchants to inscribe “H&A” on the girdle, and then point to the comments section of a GIA report to incorrectly ascribe a GIA endorsement of hearts and arrows when the report is only noting an added inscription.

In Hong Kong and Japan, they’re not a fad.
Click to expand...


Quite right.

Since their inception about 20 years ago the marketing of Super Ideals has been driven by aspects of symbolism more than aspects of performance. This is largely due to the nature of their origins. It’s also because the public-at-large doesn’t have the diamond knowledge necessary to appreciate the optical benefits of patterning if advertised on a billboard or flyer. On Pricescope we can discuss proportions, optimization and balanced minor facet configurations all day, but just try that at your local bus stop.

The marketed symbolism is tracable back to Eightstar diamonds in Japan. The arrows pattern was seen as both the octagram of the I Ching and the Rinbo of Buddhism. It was said that the pattern bore a resemblance to the eight-spoked wheel of dharma, associated with spiritual perfection in the Buddhist faith. From that standpoint both the eight-starred pattern and the subsequent Hearts & Arrows pattern that evolved in the 1990s are seen as products of a quest for perfection in precision and beauty in a diamond. Not everyone considers these patterns to have symbolism, but there is a great deal of importance placed on them in some cultures. Many of the engagement rings sold in the East are Hearts & Arrows.

When H&A patterning reached America in the mid 1990s this emphasis on symbolism was already established in the minds (and cultures) of the original makers. The spiritual aspects experienced some loss in translation in the West, so mainstreamed marketing efforts by many played up the “cute” aspect of neat Hearts & Arrows pictures in the diamond. That approach continues to this day…And why not? When was the last time you walked into a traditional jewelry store and the salesman started chatting you up about Tolkowsky proportions or patterning?

The public at-large knows very little about cut, would not typically know the difference between a round with a nice 40.8 PA or an undesirable 41.3, and has certainly never heard of balanced minor facet relationships. Therefore, mass-marketing of patterning by some remains focused on “cute H&A pictures” for the present, even though there are benefits to great patterning beyond the eye candy.

…And you will find those benefits in a well-made H&A, a ‘near’ H&A, a tightly cut Tolkowsky or a precisely patterned 60/60.
 
John,

These diamonds were being produced in the 50''s and marketed in the 60''s but everything was in store marketing in the US. Advertising back then was pretty plain. Stores advertised gifts, services, and watches. In the 60''s as DeBeer''s started marketing the Asian market it was always about quality and cut. Firms like Kaplan, Keiger, and Keppie had markets there. When catering to the upper markets, which were the only markets then, quality was the utmost concern.

The 60/60 market was mainly in Europe which preferred the larger table and still do today. The US market was and is today a mutt market (like Nick) Everything from the junko 5.8mm 1.0ct''er to the ultra premium Mr.T ultra ideal''s.
 
Date: 7/9/2005 9:34:17 AM
Author: mepearl53
John,

These diamonds were being produced in the 50's and marketed in the 60's but everything was in store marketing in the US. Advertising back then was pretty plain. Stores advertised gifts, services, and watches. In the 60's as DeBeer's started marketing the Asian market it was always about quality and cut. Firms like Kaplan, Keiger, and Keppie had markets there. When catering to the upper markets, which were the only markets then, quality was the utmost concern.

The 60/60 market was mainly in Europe which preferred the larger table and still do today. The US market was and is today a mutt market (like Nick) Everything from the junko 5.8mm 1.0ct'er to the ultra premium Mr.T ultra ideal's.
Click to expand...

Bill,

Wasn’t Kaplan cutting T-ideals long before that? LK promos say he was doing it in 1919, but I recall from GIA material that LK began cutting to ideal proportions in the 30s (?) I know GTL opened in 1939 and the AGS Diamond Grading Standards manual was produced in the 60s - by then ‘Ideal’ had a foothold in North America... The DeBeers push you allude to was what spurred people like Shigetomi and Tamura (who was simply a businessman) into action to maximize the intrinsic idea of ideal in Asia. They were empowered by the fact that tools and technology were up to the task and motivated by the potential business opportunity that optical ‘perfection’ could bring: The Japanese appreciation for extremely high quality and technology provided (here comes the pun) an ideal birthplace (here is the apology).

The H&A pattern, first called the Heart & Cupid pattern, was not discovered until the late 80s, and was apparently ‘stumbled onto’ with one of Okuda’s reflector devices (cut proportion scope?). As I recall, the Firescope was not originally designed with the sole purpose of finding/refining the eight-starred pattern either.

The new AGS ASET, designed with the intent of assessing and improving cut quality, is based on the same principals that Okuda - and perhaps earlier contemporaries in Belgium and Russia - brought forward back then. FS, Gilbertson and Ideal-Scope are based on the same fundamentals and have helped to improve global cut quality.

PS, your avatar makes me want a dog.
 
Folks LK are the business that Tolkowsky was part of
 
Garry, yes, LK was Marcel's cousin. I expect we know that, but I was wondering when he actually started dealing ideal cuts to the public. Tolkowsky used Kaplan's resources for research and development, but didn't immigrate to the US until 1940. LK was based in Belgium but during WWI moved his business to New York. He cut the Jonkers in 1936. I have some GIA material that says he was sourcing ideals to the public in 1930...LK promo material claims 1919. Just curious if anyone knows when he first was up, running and producing them for sale.
 
Good question! My father had experience with them starting in the 60''s and I starting in the 70''s. I know Mr. T came up with the formula in the early 20th century but do not know if the abilities were there to cut them? I would question these stones being produced back then for you never saw it in the estate jewelry of the period. Maybe a call to Kaplan on Monday is in order. Saying they did is one thing proving is another.
 
Just thought i''d drop this in while the pros get their handbags out
28.gif


Both my mothers and MILs stones which were bought in the late 60s and early 70s both shows very distinct arrows (mothers is around 0.15-0.2ct and MIL 0.5ct)
 
Date: 7/10/2005 9:09:33 AM
Author: mepearl53

Maybe a call to Kaplan on Monday is in order. Saying they did is one thing proving is another.
Click to expand...
I hope I didn't sound like I was in a snit about it. I just have a tiny, eency, very small bit of OCD
2.gif
so I like the narratives to match up. LK was first - I'm simply curious as to when the moniker 'ideal' entered the marketing lexicon. GIA puts it at 1930. Tolkowsky's manifesto came out in 1919 (the date LK advertises) and he did use their resources in his studies so there may be truth on both sides, but the Kaplan 'brand' was not marketed until the mid-50s.


Date: 7/10/2005 9:11:54 AM
Author: mepearl53

John I was looking at the time of your posts. Do you sleep? :-)
Click to expand...
I sleep from Jan-March
37.gif

[/b]
 
Date: 7/10/2005 3:45:46 PM
Author: JohnQuixote



Date: 7/10/2005 9:11:54 AM
Author: mepearl53

John I was looking at the time of your posts. Do you sleep? :-)
Click to expand...
I sleep from Jan-March
37.gif

[/b]
Click to expand...
Are you really a bear?
6.gif
 
Of all the Aussie mamals, John reminds me of a warm and cuddly Koala.
9.gif


(That should not be taken any of the wrong ways
17.gif
)
 
Date: 7/8/2005 7:50:32 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
'I also maintain that stones with larger tables- such as a 62% table- are more likely to look good, if they are not perfect symmetry- as compared to stones with tables between 55-58%'

David this is a new claim?
Care to explain it?
Click to expand...
Garry- I have said this before.
When thge cutter is going for ideal, if the stone does not make it, the results have a tendancy NOT to look as good a plain old good/good 60 /60 with no crown angles.

I have seen many non ideal stones with 56% tables- and by and large they don't look as good as a 61% table stone- even a 62%

Speaking of which- Garry- I ask again- you posted one of my images , blown up and with red over the diamond- could you please post the image the way it was before you did you thing with it?
The diamond is a 62/62 which I like, so it has relevance.
 
Well I got the call back from LK and the info was so so. They maintain that they cut to the specs in 1919 but I highly doubt it. My best guess is the late 50''s. Any old time AGS or Kaplan dealers have a idea?
 
I happen to know a couple of real old timers.
my friend Sam Spade, for example, is about 80- and he''s been familiar with LK since right after WWII

Sam feels that old man Kaplan ( Lazaare) DID claim to have an "Ideal" cut, way back.
Sam can''t confirm 1919- but he said it sounds realistic.

After WWII, LK started cutting their Ideal Cut stones in Puerto Rico- which gave large tax incentives.

All the while, it was NOT LK who coined the term "Hearts and Arrows". Yet, some of the older Ideal Cuts may have distinct H&A patterns

As Sam remembers, there was ( is) a lot of debate among cutters as to which table size is preferable- with MANY coming down on the side of 60% table- and MANY cutters tradionally scoffing the smaller tables of LK.


Garry- I am asking as politely as possible.
You''ve brought up a stone of ours as an example- and used an altered image of MINE to represent a 62/62 stone.
I''ve posted a copy of the GIA report, and I''m willing to have a Sarin report drawn on the diamond for the purposes of this conversation.
You''ve asked questions of me, I''ve given my opinion. I request you post the photo, as it looked before you changed it.
Can you please respond in kind?
 
Date: 7/12/2005 1:42:57 PM
Author: mepearl53
Well I got the call back from LK and the info was so so. They maintain that they cut to the specs in 1919 but I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...
The oldest piece of jewelry I''ve seen containing a diamond with arrow pattern was a ring from 1920s by Garrard. The stone was presented as a OEC or ''English brilliant''. At the time I thought the pattern was just coincidence.
 

''When thge cutter is going for ideal, if the stone does not make it, the results have a tendancy NOT to look as good a plain old good/good 60 /60 with no crown angles.


I have seen many non ideal stones with 56% tables- and by and large they don''t look as good as a 61% table stone- even a 62%"


I would agree with this....There are many fine looking diamonds that are not Tolkowsky makes. Some with only partial Tolkowsky makes are not very nice at all. My wife''s big rock is a lovely looking diamond, but not a tradional "Ideal". It is a 60/60 with a super look and a good spread...An excellent compromise.

 
Date: 7/12/2005 4:08:52 PM
Author: oldminer

I would agree with this....There are many fine looking diamonds that are not Tolkowsky makes. Some with only partial Tolkowsky makes are not very nice at all. My wife's big rock is a lovely looking diamond, but not a tradional 'Ideal'. It is a 60/60 with a super look and a good spread...An excellent compromise.
Click to expand...

This is an important reason that AGS came up with their new assessment metrics. The new 0 is based on observation, not numbers, so 'ideal' embraces many other possibilities.

60/60 fans will enjoy knowing that diamonds which were categorically ‘out’ of AGS0 before due to large tables may now be ‘in’ now with great light performance, along with other proportion factors/finish. Alternately, former AGS0 diamonds with 'outer limit' proportions will no longer be 'in' with inadequate performance.

Good 60/60 'in.' Borderline former ideal 'out.'

It is a more robust, stronger grade.
 

Date: 7/12/2005 2:51:50 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren


Garry- I am asking as politely as possible.
You''ve brought up a stone of ours as an example- and used an altered image of MINE to represent a 62/62 stone.
I''ve posted a copy of the GIA report, and I''m willing to have a Sarin report drawn on the diamond for the purposes of this conversation.
You''ve asked questions of me, I''ve given my opinion. I request you post the photo, as it looked before you changed it.
Can you please respond in kind?
Click to expand...
It would be great if you could get a Sarin 3D .srn file done if we are going to really look at it - then we can also test your idea that high symmetry is not good for big table diamonds.

This is the only image I have unfortunately - but you have them on your computer :)

1.71 L SI2sm.jpg
 
Hi Garry- OK- now the photo has little teenie blue lines all over it.
Very cool- but that''s still NOT the photo you started with.

The diamond is currently set- and I want our factory to remove it, they are closed this week for vacation- so the sarin will be done next week.

I know we''re on opposite sides of the world- but where did you ever get the idea that I felt Very Good, or Excellent Symmetry was "not good on big tabled diamonds"?

And while we''re at it- why do you,and John use the term "Big Table" to describe a 60% table?
Makes it sound like a 60% table is not the right size. There is simply NO way to prove that 60% is right, or wrong.

I feel 56% tables look small. So do a lot of dealers and cutters.

Yet I respect the Ideal Cut stones- and the people that like them.
Why are people using terrminology that makes 60/60''s seem like less of a diamond?
 
Date: 7/12/2005 11:16:18 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
Hi Garry- OK- now the photo has little teenie blue lines all over it.
Very cool- but that''s still NOT the photo you started with. it is - but there are many similar ones on your site of this stone

The diamond is currently set- and I want our factory to remove it, they are closed this week for vacation- so the sarin will be done next week. it will cost you money to pull it out, but if you are happy to do it we can run some tests on it for free. But I think you might not like the answers

I know we''re on opposite sides of the world- but where did you ever get the idea that I felt Very Good, or Excellent Symmetry was ''not good on big tabled diamonds''? You mentioned it on an earlier page - have not got time to find it just now.

And while we''re at it- why do you,and John use the term ''Big Table'' to describe a 60% table?
Makes it sound like a 60% table is not the right size. There is simply NO way to prove that 60% is right, or wrong. objection to your using the term "large table" with regard to 60-60s, you might be interested to know that on the first page of this thread he uses the term "small table" with regard to those diamonds he is criticising in this thread. If he wishes others to refrain from using prejudicial terminology, he might consider applying the same standard to his own posts.

David using the term "large table" with regard to the 62% stone - I call under 53 small and over 61 big - and on the first page of this thread you use the term "small table" with regard to what I call middle sized that you are criticising in this thread.

I feel 56% tables look small. So do a lot of dealers and cutters.

Yet I respect the Ideal Cut stones- and the people that like them.
Why are people using terrminology that makes 60/60''s seem like less of a diamond? I was refferring to your very much smaller spread 62% depth 62% big table diamond 9that BTW has some typos and errors compared to the certificate - they are all in your favor too.
Click to expand...
 

Date: 7/12/2005 11:16:18 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

And while we''re at it- why do you,and John use the term ''Big Table'' to describe a 60% table?
Makes it sound like a 60% table is not the right size. There is simply NO way to prove that 60% is right, or wrong.
Click to expand...
David, I used ''large'' in context with AGS'' old categorization. They used to limit AGS0 to diamonds with tables of 53-57%

"diamonds which were categorically ‘out’ of AGS0 before due to large tables may now be ‘in’ now"

I''m not sure why you sensed criticism. My statement was highlighting AGS'' performance-based system that now allows for possible ideals with >57% tables.
 
Date: 7/13/2005 12:42:08 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)



Date: 7/12/2005 11:16:18 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
Hi Garry- OK- now the photo has little teenie blue lines all over it.
Very cool- but that's still NOT the photo you started with. it is - but there are many similar ones on your site of this stone. Garry- can you put a link to where I have a photo with blue lines all over it? I don't recall EVER having that type of "marked" photo. Since you initially took my photo and changed it, I think it's fair for you to show us what you started with- I don't know exactly which of my photos you've edited- but you did start with a photo which has a regular color diamond ( not red) nor did the photo have blue lines on it.

The diamond is currently set- and I want our factory to remove it, they are closed this week for vacation- so the sarin will be done next week. it will cost you money to pull it out, but if you are happy to do it we can run some tests on it for free. But I think you might not like the answers.
Garry- I like the diamond- a report will not change this. Yes, it WILL cost a little money- are you calling me cheap?
emotion-16.gif
Seriously- I am here for the purposes of a fair honest discourse.
You've used the photo to extrapolate angles and things. If the sarin report confirms your theories, I will be the first to say so. I don't know who the "we" is that is offering to run tests on the diamond- I was going to have it sent up to the "Diamond Club" in NYC and have a sarin drawn- then post the results. I guess you would have to take me at my word that I will use the same diamond and post the actual results- I promise to do exactly that.
if you were in NYC and wanted to have your own tests done, I would certianly be amenable to that

I know we're on opposite sides of the world- but where did you ever get the idea that I felt Very Good, or Excellent Symmetry was 'not good on big tabled diamonds'? You mentioned it on an earlier page - have not got time to find it just now. Please take the time Garry- in all fairness, if you are putting words into my mouth please show us where they came from- if I said it, I was wrong, but I just don't think I said it.

And while we're at it- why do you,and John use the term 'Big Table' to describe a 60% table?
Makes it sound like a 60% table is not the right size. There is simply NO way to prove that 60% is right, or wrong. objection to your using the term 'large table' with regard to 60-60s, you might be interested to know that on the first page of this thread he uses the term 'small table' with regard to those diamonds he is criticising in this thread. If he wishes others to refrain from using prejudicial terminology, he might consider applying the same standard to his own posts.

David using the term 'large table' with regard to the 62% stone - I call under 53 small and over 61 big - and on the first page of this thread you use the term 'small table' with regard to what I call middle sized that you are criticising in this thread.

I feel 56% tables look small. So do a lot of dealers and cutters. You are correct Garry- I was guilty of exactly what I accused others of- that being: describing a 56% table in a perjarotive, derogitory manner- I apologize to anyone with a 56% table diamond that I offended.

Yet I respect the Ideal Cut stones- and the people that like them.
Why are people using terrminology that makes 60/60's seem like less of a diamond? I was refferring to your very much smaller spread 62% depth 62% big table diamond 9that BTW has some typos and errors compared to the certificate - they are all in your favor too. Garry- if we have errors on a page, we certainly appreciate folks pointing it out- we do have over 175 actual items described, and hey, we're all human.
Of course you are inferring that we purposely published erroneous info to someohow decieve foks- I think that' a little out of line, no? Could you please give the specific errors, and how they'd be helping us?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Date: 7/13/2005 1:00:47 PM
Author: JohnQuixote


Date: 7/12/2005 11:16:18 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

And while we''re at it- why do you,and John use the term ''Big Table'' to describe a 60% table?
Makes it sound like a 60% table is not the right size. There is simply NO way to prove that 60% is right, or wrong.
Click to expand...
David, I used ''large'' in context with AGS'' old categorization. They used to limit AGS0 to diamonds with tables of 53-57%

''diamonds which were categorically ‘out’ of AGS0 before due to large tables may now be ‘in’ now''

I''m not sure why you sensed criticism. My statement was highlighting AGS'' performance-based system that now allows for possible ideals with >57% tables.
Click to expand...
So it sounds like we''re in agreement John ( beside about cars that is
31.gif
)
A 60% table CAN be considered to be a "great cut"

BTW- I hate to be a bug ( actually I love it) but does this not prove the fact that AGS was WAY out of line with their original table categorization?
 
Date: 7/13/2005 1:32:33 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren
So it sounds like we're in agreement John ( beside about cars that is
31.gif
)
A 60% table CAN be considered to be a 'great cut'

BTW- I hate to be a bug ( actually I love it) but does this not prove the fact that AGS was WAY out of line with their original table categorization?
Click to expand...
A bug? I thought we were Porsche-people
2.gif


I don't think the first iteration was out of line. As a pioneer for world cut grading I think AGS' original system worked well. Perhaps a bit exclusive with some 60/60s and a bit inclusive with some steep/deep - but it provided a clear standard - and the meaty zone remains the meaty zone even in the new system.

The new system still agrees with scientifically proven proportions, but takes more aspects into account as direct-assessment, not categorical proportions-exclusion, makes the determination about performance.

Sure, we are likely in agreement. Actually David, if we were surrounded by a buffet of princess and round diamonds & asked to choose the best in unison I suspect we would agree on a great many and cuss -n- discuss some others. My inclination is that the AGS performance metric would be in line with our unified determinations.
 
John, here''s one place we differ in opinion:
I don''t feel that AGS was EVER, in any way, "a pioneer for world cut grading"
As a matter of fact, it still seems to me that as they conform to standards most cutters agree are correct, their older proclamations about cut seem absurd.

That is not to say that Hearts and Arrows are a fad- clearly they are NOT a fad- but just as clearly, neither is 60/60.
 
Hi,

Just found the source image that was used for the wireframe analysis and the description of said stone on the DBL ebay listing:

here

Hope this helps further the discussion.

Best regards,
Scott

wirefree.jpg
 
David if you are going to go to the bother would you please insist on an .srn file which enables sa 3D file that includes the diamonds assymmetry and that you can email me at garryh @ ideal-scope.com (without the spaces).
 
If they provide an .srn file at the club, I'll be happy to do it- if YOU want me to!

You posted your ideas on what the angles are on the diamond- a sarin would simply show if your estimations were in line.

I never need to look at a sarin to decide if I want to purchase a diamond. Not because I'm some stone genius, simply because the beauty of a well cut diamond is self evident.

PS- THANK YOU Scott!!!

That does indeed seem to be the photo that Garry used for his calculations.
 
Since there will be Sarin file for this one I will try to get close too.

dbl2.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top