H&A?

[MissAva]

How do vendors determine H&A quality? I was looking at one earlier and half of the arrow is gone? Does this not effect it''s ideal cut status?

 

[belle]

each vendor may have a different set of criteria that describes what they consider true h&a. however, h&a patterning has nothing to do with whether or not a stone is 'ideal'. you can have 'ideal' cut stones that are not true h&a.

 

[MissAva]

Ah so what causes the things like this: How can one tell by looking?

 

[MissAva]

Okay or maybe a better way to phrase that is what does H&A mean? I allows thought it meant Hearts and Arrows..was I wrong.

 

[strmrdr]

link please?
Then I can tell ya whats up with it.

 

[belle]

h&a does mean heart and arrows. there are differing extremes of what one might consider a stone to be h&a

you can read more about h&a here.

 

[strmrdr]

Found it:

My guess is that something is on the diamond and it got missed when it was photographed.
AGS wouldnt have given it a AGS0 like that and the sarin scan isnt showing it.


http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_652ct_g_i1_h%26a.htm

Chas eating in the lab? hehehehe

 

[belle]

strm, that stone is an i1 and that whatever it is shows up in every picture. i think it is an anomaly.

 

[strmrdr]

on further review its a chocolate coated diamond!
hmm that could hurt someones teeth!

 

[MissAva]

Sorry I found that stone while trying to show a friend an I1 vs SI for clarity...he is asking soon. Then I saw this and was a little confused... Can improper cutting change a clarity rating? What is that...

 

[belle]

on the upside...if you purchased it, you would have no trouble identifying it as your own.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/14/2005 9:26:43 PM
Author: belle
strm, that stone is an i1 and that whatever it is shows up in every picture. i think it is an anomaly.

You could very well be right.
but its more fun thinking of chocolate covered diamonds!

You have to admit in the pic it sure does look like it :}

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/14/2005 9:26:43 PM
Author: belle
strm, that stone is an i1 and that whatever it is shows up in every picture. i think it is an anomaly.

Belle is dead on. Good observation. Strm... FOOD?!?!? Put that crack pipe down.

 

[belle]

hey rhino, could you tell us about the inclusion...what is it? a cloud?

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/14/2005 9:29:51 PM
Author: Matatora
Sorry I found that stone while trying to show a friend an I1 vs SI for clarity...he is asking soon. Then I saw this and was a little confused... Can improper cutting change a clarity rating? What is that...

A rather large feather. The stone comes from a regular supplier of ours. That is a diamond we did not purchase for inventory but because of my relationship with the supplier I offered to help him move this stone by giving it exposure on our site.

Whether cutting can change a clarity rating ... Since I''m not a cutter I can only tell you what I''ve heard from those who are. Participating cutters may want to chime in and add/edit/correct anything I say.

Not only can a clarity grade change as a result of putting a stone to the wheel, the entire diamond can break. This is where internal strain can become an issue and increase or decrease the chances of this happening. We have photographed this phenomena and have examples of it in our tutorial on clarity if you''d like to see or perhaps one of you can post a graphic here.

I believe that in most cases the risk is pretty low, otherwise I don''t think cutters would want to take the chance since the rough is still not cheap but due to the slightly higher risk, rough with strain trades at a little lower price because of it. In most cases I would think cutting does not change a clarity grade but perhaps can even increase it at times as well.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/15/2005 10:03:02 AM
Author: belle
hey rhino, could you tell us about the inclusion...what is it? a cloud?

Hi belle,

The inclusion is a feather which, in the hemisphere graphic you posted is located at the 3:00 position. This feather reflects in opposite corresponding facets and you can see the reflection of that feather under the table. Diamonds that have imperfections located towards the bottom (pavilion) of a diamond also tend to reflect within a stone and many times it appears that there can be more than one imperfection when in fact its only one reflecting within the stone. It can also contribute to a lower clarity grade although in this case the feater is large enough to justify an I1 clarity grade without the reflection being considered. Hope that helps.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/14/2005 9:15:17 PM
Author: belle
h&a does mean heart and arrows. there are differing extremes of what one might consider a stone to be h&a

JohnQ and I were on the phone yesterday discussing this very thing. Once the new site is finished we''re going to be labeling all stones H&A, Near H&A and otherwise (perhaps NON H&A). We gotta talk more though cause a diamond can have superior optical symmetry yet not be *true* H&A AND still be a stone that someone considers extremely pleasing to their eyes. Both of us (WF and I... its scary how we think alike in many regards) have been thinking of developing a grade for this feature. While they are focusing on the H&A aspect, which I think is great, I feel it should not be limited to *only* H&A but to include all diamonds with which a cutter has taken his time to produce superior optical symmetry coupled with superior optics. I can post an example if you''re not completely getting me or would like clarification.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/14/2005 9:30:37 PM
Author: belle
on the upside...if you purchased it, you would have no trouble identifying it as your own.

YOU''RE HIRED!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/15/2005 10:00:56 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 9/14/2005 9:26:43 PM

Author: belle

strm, that stone is an i1 and that whatever it is shows up in every picture. i think it is an anomaly.

Belle is dead on. Good observation. Strm... FOOD?!?!? Put that crack pipe down.

heheheh got to have some fun once in a while and it does look like someone with chocolate on there hands touched it.
Mark it as a chocolate diamond then patent it! :}

 

[strmrdr]

btw this makes it clear what is is:

And yes I looked at it :}

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/15/2005 11:53:28 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/15/2005 10:00:56 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 9/14/2005 9:26:43 PM

Author: belle

strm, that stone is an i1 and that whatever it is shows up in every picture. i think it is an anomaly.

Belle is dead on. Good observation. Strm... FOOD?!?!? Put that crack pipe down.

heheheh got to have some fun once in a while and it does look like someone with chocolate on there hands touched it.
Mark it as a chocolate diamond then patent it! :}

LMAO

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/15/2005 10:31:43 AM
Author: Rhino

Once the new site is finished we''re going to be labeling all stones H&A, Near H&A and otherwise (perhaps NON H&A). We gotta talk more though cause a diamond can have superior optical symmetry yet not be *true* H&A AND still be a stone that someone considers extremely pleasing to their eyes. Both of us (WF and I... its scary how we think alike in many regards) have been thinking of developing a grade for this feature.

Oh, any chance there could be a bit of talk about this around here ? You guys seem to have a few issues to deal with - including accomodating third party symmetry (the labs'') grading and intricate correlation between several sorts of criteria (say, finish and optics) and a good deal of tweaking semantics. Music to my ears, in short

On the side...
Out of curiosity, doesn''t that particular I1 make a great candidate for clarity enhancement ? It just has one big blob inside after all.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/15/2005 2:48:25 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 9/15/2005 10:31:43 AM
Author: Rhino

Once the new site is finished we're going to be labeling all stones H&A, Near H&A and otherwise (perhaps NON H&A). We gotta talk more though cause a diamond can have superior optical symmetry yet not be *true* H&A AND still be a stone that someone considers extremely pleasing to their eyes. Both of us (WF and I... its scary how we think alike in many regards) have been thinking of developing a grade for this feature.

Oh, any chance there could be a bit of talk about this around here ? You guys seem to have a few issues to deal with - including accomodating third party symmetry (the labs') grading and intricate correlation between several sorts of criteria (say, finish and optics) and a good deal of tweaking semantics. Music to my ears, in short

Val. we had a nice convo along these lines. Rhino sent a photo of a good looking hearts image for Brian/me to examine for shift-yaw (to verify we were all seeing the same thing). He also wanted to know if Brian would grade it as 'true' hearts patterning...for any curious, judging from the image it was primo. Very nice stone, and excellent photography. No surprise

This led to a good discussion about grading standards for H&A, and the possibility of some of the 'internet peers' like WF/GOG, etc. arriving at a uniform system for grading of optical symmetry. Brian presented his system at the IDCC in '04 and has graded every ACA according to that standard. I'm going to send Brian's standards to Rhino (they have been somewhat updated since '04 as a result of the shift-yaw studies) - for anyone who has the IDCC Notes his basic system is presented there. Those IDCC notes are for sale on Garry's site by the way. Anyone wanting a look at Serg's ETAS, much reflector discussion, Garry's insight, Brian's grading system for H&A, etc... It's well worth the 20 bucks

Yes such a system is very nitpicky (too nitpicky for major labs right now, Val), but I think the kind of enthusiasts we have on PS would approve if more vendors would subscribe to an adopted set of standards... "True" "Near-True" "Non" as Brian has done (or Ex, VG, G)...by any other name a rose is still a rose - if we can agree on precisely what constitutes a rose. Optical Symmetry is not graded by labs, but there is nothing stopping sellers from establishing guaranteed standards and doing their own grading for those customers, enthusiasts and cut geeks who want it... Brian has been doing it for years with ACA and it's promising that others who deal with premium goods are thinking along the same lines

The recent shift/yaw threads, though somewhat laborious and still subject to debate, have served to spark conversation about things that are actually tangible to many here - like hearts patterning and emphasis on the pavilion.

 

[Rhino]

Hey John,

Just about to cut out to the Stones concert.

I look forward to continuing our discussion about this and arriving at a standard, perhaps we can both agree upon. I honestly do not think there would be much disagreement if any, just some ideas to hash out. If you prefer to discuss these things in private I'm fine with that or if you'd prefer to discuss them on the forum I'm fine with that too. I can understand if Brian would want to keep it private at this time but the idea of putting our heads together on this I think is a good idea. I look forward to hearin from ya bro and hope you've found some time to break away and relax. I know you're busy there. I'm just gonna cut loose tonight and really have a great time. Last time I saw the stones was back in 81... around the time alot here were born.

Peace out,

 

[LAJennifer]

Stones concert at Giants'' Stadium - I''m jealous!

 

[Bagpuss]

Date: 9/15/2005 10:31:43 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 9/14/2005 9:15:17 PM
Author: belle
h&a does mean heart and arrows. there are differing extremes of what one might consider a stone to be h&a

JohnQ and I were on the phone yesterday discussing this very thing. Once the new site is finished we''re going to be labeling all stones H&A, Near H&A and otherwise (perhaps NON H&A). We gotta talk more though cause a diamond can have superior optical symmetry yet not be *true* H&A AND still be a stone that someone considers extremely pleasing to their eyes. Both of us (WF and I... its scary how we think alike in many regards) have been thinking of developing a grade for this feature. While they are focusing on the H&A aspect, which I think is great, I feel it should not be limited to *only* H&A but to include all diamonds with which a cutter has taken his time to produce superior optical symmetry coupled with superior optics. I can post an example if you''re not completely getting me or would like clarification.

Fascinating stuff.

Quote '' ....a diamond can have superior optical symmetry yet not be *true* H&A AND still be a stone that somone considers extremely pleasing to their eyes. Both of us .....have been thinking of developing a grade for this feature.''

That I would love to see. Please post examples of stones in this category when you get back from rocking with ''The Stones''

 

[MissAva]

Aww... some of us younging like the Stones. Who could dislike Mothers Little Helper? (Oh and 83

)
How many dealers on PS would be willing to go for a uniform labeling system? Would there be another tutorial? I keep looking at other web pages other then PS apporved and the terms Hearts and Arrows and Ideal are getting tossed around alot, without the quality of stone that can be found at WF, GOG, or DCD.

 

[strmrdr]

In not rhino but here is an example:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/0_84ct_g_vs2_h%26a.htm

A very slightly shifted arrow shaft keeps it from true h&a.
You can also see it on the hearts view as an enlarged arrow head.

high performance, exellent symmetry, not true h&a

 

[strmrdr]

also I want to go on record stating that I think consumers should be involved in setting the standard and it should be done in an open manner.

 

[Bagpuss]

Date: 9/15/2005 10:53:11 PM
Author: strmrdr
In not rhino but here is an example:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/0_84ct_g_vs2_h%26a.htm

A very slightly shifted arrow shaft keeps it from true h&a.
You can also see it on the hearts view as an enlarged arrow head.

high performance, exellent symmetry, not true h&a

Thanks strmdr - you make one darn good sub though!

I assume that thes ''near'' h&a stones would be a little less in price than if they were ''true'' h&a even though they have wonderful performance and excellent symmetry?