Hearts and arrows so what !

[scotch]

----------------
On 6/16/2004 8:53:47 AM Iceman wrote:

Paul:

No smoke screen, just that I don’t feel like I should act like everybody else and blow smoke on the public. I report things that I’ve experienced to the public. If this interferes with all the widgets and gadgets you suggest people to wear at a party to prove to everybody they have a 'True' Hearts and Arrows diamonds then I’m sorry.----------------

You can see the arrow pattern under most light conditions with the unaided eye. Of course, in a set stone, you mostly won't be able to see the hearts. What I don't get about this whole discussion: A round brilliant supposedly features a symmetrical arrangement of facets. Shouldn't you always be able to see a symmetrical pattern then? To me, if I see a jumbled picture in a round brilliant, the cut is simply not done right. The H&A is not an ideal, the pinnacle of cutting, it's simply what a round brilliant is supposed to look like to begin with. If I wanted to be facetious

, I would say: "Mrs./Mr. Customer, forget about the H&A. Here, the cutter did a bum job on this $9,000 diamond, but we give it to you for $1,000 less." Better deal? I don't think so. (I'll stop ranting now)

----------------
Another diamond ~ A true hearts and Arrows, or at least what you will except as being one 61% depth and 57 table. Ok that diamond came in and it sucked with a capital 'S”, it was an SI1 and it looked foggy (no florescence). The million pinpoint inclusions that were so fine it was hard to pick them up on a scope made it look that way.----------------

Iceman, that doesn't prove anything. You wouldn't say people shouldn't wear miniskirts, because here's a fat lady that doesn't look good in them. Of course you can cut a cloudy diamond to show the H&A pattern. You can put lipstick on a pig. Within limits, you can also get a diamond with poor proportions to show the H&A pattern, these are two different things: proportions and display of an optical pattern.

----------------
People need to see the diamonds, numbers don’t always help.----------------

Yes, but they help a lot most of the time. If a diamond is cloudy, oily or whatever, no proportions will make that go away. If a diamond is transparent and has good proportions, it will under most circumstances perform better than if the same diamond were cut with poor proportions. If the diamond is also cut to show a symmetrical (H&A) pattern, it will under most circumstances look more beautiful to most people than a stone showing a non symmetrical pattern.

----------------
Paul: What is the set standard for Hearts and Arrows I would like to hear this.----------------

Very interesting point, this goes beyond the question of symmetry or not. There was an earlier thread here on PS that mentioned one or two Japanese labs, and there was also a link to a document in Japanese that was supposed to explain the standards for true H&A. This information, I think, was posted by Superidealist. I'll do a search on it later.

Best,
Scotch

 

[Iceman]

Its one of those things were you trust the jeweler you work with, for them to know how the diamond looks and be your eyes. People like this would be those types of people that would give you a straight up answer before it was shipped.

It’s more then a one part answer and it’s not a one sided answer there are many facets to this topic.

I just wanted to bring up things when I find them.

I picked out these three Todd, Rhino and Leslie they put their time in on this site and make you feel like part of a family, knowledgeable and fair.
Why people buy from vendors that never make a presents on here is beyond me and are just in here for the lunch line; it is either they could care less and just want the money or don’t know enough about their product to put their 2 cents in.

Oh, and by the way there are more of that fat girl in a mini skirt here in the Midwest then you all realize

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Ice,

The problem is that there is a difference between a H&A-pattern and a super-ideal stone, which many people describe, for the sake of simplicity, as a H&A. These are two different things.

A H&A-pattern can be observed in many symmetrically cut round brilliants, but has, as such, no connection with the quality of the cut.

A super-ideal stone has not only H&A, but also a fantastic combination of proportions, so that the combination of proportions and symmetry provide a stone with magnificent light performance, in all kinds of light conditions. Such a stone is the H&A, that we often are talking about here, not the one with unknown proportions, which only shows a pattern.

Possibly, with next year's new AGS-grading system, we might not mention the H&A anymore, because it might be very difficult to obtain an AGS-0-grade, without H&A. That is because the arrows-pattern is an important part of the contrast of a round brilliant, and this adds to the beauty of a stone as such, and in movement, it is extremely important for the scintillation.

All in all, I am not happy with so many people mixing up super-ideal stones with the term H&A. It is similar to calling all women 'skirts'.

Live long,

 

[oldminer]

Paul;

I love your "skirts" analogy. Very good choice.

We are going into a period where cutters will be encouraged to be "creative" in order to differentiate themselves and their production from one another. Even when a specialty cut is just nice looking, not truly super, the firm will want to promote it as a "brand", "special" "limied in numbers" "one of a kind". You know what I mean. Many of these stones will barely be unique, but marketing money will be spent or thrown away on them. Some may have H&A or a version of them and it will touted that this "means something" when it is really a residual effect, an accident due to cutting style, that we can see with a neat little viewer. Maybe H&A does indicate some good qualities of cutting, but it is not an essential characteristic of a fine cut, or most brilliant diamond in many instances.

The term has been abused and overused. We will see more of it, not less. In the end, the term will have so little impact that it won't mean much to any dealer. Eventually I see retailers not caring a whoile lot either. But, for now, it works and it is way nicer than saying all ladies are simply "skirts"...