h&a - which came first?

[strmrdr]

Was it noticed that diamonds with it performed better and studies were done or was it marketed as a gimmick first then the studies were done to support the gimmick and it became not so much a gimmick?

While the advantaages of them have been discussed to death I dont remember reading about this part of it :}

 

[Superidealist]

This thread may answer some of your questions.

 

[valeria101]

Err... why woudl H&A be a gimmick?

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 8/18/2004 3:16:26 PM valeria101 wrote:



Err... why woudl H&A be a gimmick?

----------------

hehehe
I knew someonee was going to ask that.

If you wish substitute marketing hype for gimmick....
I could have and likely would have if id thought about it at the time asked it as..
Which came first the research or the marketing hype?

......
Thanks Superidealist it answered a lot of it...

 

[valeria101]

Well... there is one thing I do not like and one I do allot about the H&A idea:

#1 (the good): it is a simple visual cue that does indicate a nice diamond to anyone with the least amount of experience. What better (more fun, more elegant and intellectually appealing, whatever you wish) way to identify quality than look for a pleasing pattern of light and shadow in a diamond ?

#2 (the bad): the H&A patern is sufficient but not necesary proof of quality. So one will miss a wide range of beautiful diamonds if looking for H&A only.

Since there are H&A with decent pricing, #1 seem to overpower #2, IMO.


Of course, one could walk around with a Bscope in toe or with an ideal cut CZ in the pocket to evaluate diamonds (Garry mentioned this could be under way, right?), but it is still better if you could reach a relatively precise judgement with no props at all just keeping the H&A picture in mind and a simple receipe of how to look for it.

I do understand that some levels of precision do get a premium even if they are beyond the visual range (as the details of the harts and arrows pattern itself), but some H&A is still a cue when present.

I wish there was simmilar comment as for H&A for other "patterns" that indicate top brilliance, say among AGS0 or the HCA ideal range. If those were snow flakes, stars or what not, the pattern would be just as useful as H&A, of course. It just so happens that this particular one got out of the proverbial box first

Just my impression, of course.