Hearts and arrows Vs Idealscope?

[Lykame]

I do apologise, because I feel sure this is a silly question, but despite having read various threads and websites about it, I'm still confused.

I cannot figure out why a hearts and arrows viewer and an Idealscope are a different thing? I know that hearts and arrows is about symmetry, and that an Idealscope is about light return, but how do they differ in the way they actually view the diamond? Is there a light source associated with an Idealscope? Is there a relationship between what you see in a hearts and arrows viewer vs an idealscope?

I am asking this question because I have a hearts and arrows viewer but not an Idealscope. I have just bought an ASET scope from AGS (amazing international customer service, I'm very impressed). It hasn't arrived yet. I haven't bought an Idealscope. I can't figure out really what an Idealscope adds that you can't get from an ASET combined with a hearts and arrows? And out of all of them I would have thought the ASET is most important.

I would be super grateful for clarification please. What am I missing?

I was playing with my diamond and my heart and arrows viewer. It is a mounted stone and trying to get a well-aligned picture did make me feel quite sea-sick...! This was the best I could do:

 

[flyingpig]

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/whiteflashs-hearts-and-arrows-viewer.222357/

The biggest difference between the IS and the H&A viewer is that you need backlighting for the IS. For the IS image, in the area where there is leakage, it appears white or pinkish, very easy to detect. For the H&A image, it will appear black or in most cases dark blue/dark red, which is rather hard to detect. It is even harder if the H&A viewer is blue. You could use backlighting for the H&A viewer, then.. leakage will be white and contrast will be white as well. How can you tell which is which? In addition, the H&A viewer is not designed to be used with backlighting.

Lastly, it is a good call that you buy an ASET scope. An ASET image with white background is the most useful.

 

[sledge]

This has a pretty good overview of the different aspects....

https://www.whiteflash.com/whiteflash-diamond-imaging/

Hey @flyingpig, where did you buy all your equipment and what models do you have? I started another thread, but am interested in buying an ASET, IS and H&A viewer along with a cleaner & loupe/microscope.

 

[Lykame]

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/whiteflashs-hearts-and-arrows-viewer.222357/

The biggest difference between the IS and the H&A viewer is that you need backlighting for the IS. For the IS image, in the area where there is leakage, it appears white or pinkish, very easy to detect. For the H&A image, it will appear black or in most cases dark blue/dark red, which is rather hard to detect. It is even harder if the H&A viewer is blue. You could use backlighting for the H&A viewer, then.. leakage will be white and contrast will be white as well. How can you tell which is which? In addition, the H&A viewer is not designed to be used with backlighting.

Lastly, it is a good call that you buy an ASET scope. An ASET image with white background is the most useful.

Thanks for this information; I hadn't found that useful information by @Wink in my searching.

Is it worth me trying to use my H&A viewer with a backlight? Does that convert it into an Idealscope? Or not really? To be honest it's probably not the best quality thing either, and as you are saying blue is more difficult to interpret than red. I've seen quite a few Idealscope pictures and the leakage is pretty easy to detect. The thing I find more difficult is knowing if the picture was taken correctly - people seem to be able to immediately tell if the picture taker didn't take it properly. A tilt is one thing, too close is another.

I got the ASET from AGS. Plus postage and packaging it was $68 and that won't include duties. Initially they wishes to send it by FedEx and it would have been $107... For a $25 product!!! Luckily their customer service was amazing and they were able to find me an alternative postage option. It's just making me reluctant to try and source an Idealscope if I don't really need it.

 

[sledge]

The way I understand things is the H&A viewer is to confirm symmetry only. The idealscope is to confirm if there is leakage.

While both shows pics of the arrows, you cannot really apply a backlight to the H&A viewer without over saturating it and causing a mess that is hard to read and gain useful info from.

I wasn't aware the blue H&A viewer was more difficult to use/read. Just a preference thing for me but I prefer blue to red and was seeking out a blue version. Can someone explain a bit more on the why it's more difficult to read statement?

In regards to bad images, I am still learning myself. Sometimes you will see oddities like one side of the arrows are long and skinny and the others are short and fat. Or you may see a ring of light where the backlighting is out of whack.

I myself need to do more research on this and would appreciate a link on how to better detect misaligned or badly taken images.

I've seen @Karl_K spit out data concerning the matter like a Yoda.

 

[sledge]

Oh yeah @Garry H (Cut Nut), the inventor of the idealscope, sells them on his website directly. I think he's based in Australia so he may be familiar with international shipping methods to minimize duties, etc.

 

[YoLaL]

Would you mind to share the specs of this diamond?

I do apologise, because I feel sure this is a silly question, but despite having read various threads and websites about it, I'm still confused.

I cannot figure out why a hearts and arrows viewer and an Idealscope are a different thing? I know that hearts and arrows is about symmetry, and that an Idealscope is about light return, but how do they differ in the way they actually view the diamond? Is there a light source associated with an Idealscope? Is there a relationship between what you see in a hearts and arrows viewer vs an idealscope?

I am asking this question because I have a hearts and arrows viewer but not an Idealscope. I have just bought an ASET scope from AGS (amazing international customer service, I'm very impressed). It hasn't arrived yet. I haven't bought an Idealscope. I can't figure out really what an Idealscope adds that you can't get from an ASET combined with a hearts and arrows? And out of all of them I would have thought the ASET is most important.

I would be super grateful for clarification please. What am I missing?

I was playing with my diamond and my heart and arrows viewer. It is a mounted stone and trying to get a well-aligned picture did make me feel quite sea-sick...! This was the best I could do:

 

[flyingpig]

I never meant to say the blue H&A viewer is more difficult to use or read. It is the worst when it comes to assessing light leakage. Yes, you are right. If there is an area with only leakage and no light return whatsoever, it will appear black, which is easy to see. The point is that the H&A viewer is not useless in assessing light leakage/return. It is just not the right tool for it. The IS is superior in that regard.
A picture worth a thousand words
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...set-idealscope-and-ha-images-included.230771/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/need-help-evaluating-aset-idealscope-and-h-a.241308/
See how the ASET and IS images white background exaggerates light leakage and the H&A and ASET images with black background masks it.

Here is the reason why you don't use backlighting for the H&A viewer.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-interpreting-an-ideal-scope.199931/
Experts and some of us can tell which white is leakage and which is contrast. The image is not useless; but it is not easy to interpret either. For beginners, it is just a mess as you can read from the OP's initial comment in the thread. But you can try it; it will be a fun experiment and you will definitely learn something.

 

[WinkHPD]

Thank you for the comment @Lykame. Actually I am happy to address your specific question here too, along with the very smart posters above.

Is it worth me trying to use my H&A viewer with a backlight? Does that convert it into an Idealscope? Or not really?

No, it doesn’t. Using light from beneath exposes areas where the diamond is acting like a window, and those areas logically will appear white. But the H&A scope is already designed so light from highest angles is white. That’s why the cap is white on small viewers, and why there is open space above the filament paper, topped by a white disc on larger viewers.

The benefits you can examine in H&A scope: A high level of Optical Precision can increase the size of the diamond’s internal reflections (compound mirrors) and sharpen contrast pattern edges. The limitations are that there is no indication of performance quality. Optical Precision only benefits diamonds known to have high performance as a prerequisite. Additionally, the scope gives a motionless view, but the benefits of Optical Precision occur across a range of tilt.

I got the ASET from AGS. Plus postage and packaging it was $68 and that won't include duties. Initially they wishes to send it by FedEx and it would have been $107... For a $25 product!!! Luckily their customer service was amazing and they were able to find me an alternative postage option. It's just making me reluctant to try and source an Idealscope if I don't really need it.

You actually don’t. The ideal-scope is more user-friendly and is great for round brilliants. The ASET is equally useful, but it’s harder to interpret at first. With practice it’s very easy. And the ASET is more useful if you ever go fancy shape exploring.

The ASET is showing where the diamond is drawing its light from the hemisphere in the static, face-up view.



Light from high above the observer is color coded Blue. Your head and body often block this light in the static view. Light coming from above and around your shoulders is color coded red, and that’s where round brilliants should draw most light, for top brightness. Light from the sides is color coded green. That light is useful but should be limited to facet meet points, and/or pooled in the center. Light that is lost because it passes through the diamond creates a “window” where you can see what’s underneath. In backlit situations it will appear white. If the diamond is not backlit that windowing will appear black (this is a difference between ASET and ideal-scope…ideal-scope is always, always backlit. ASET depends on the user’s choice.)

If you are seeking top brightness you should avoid light loss or windowing at the edges or center. Such areas can go dark in normal and low social lighting conditions. Diamonds with more green than red areas will also go darker and appear smaller in normal lighting. Diamonds with blue that is not evenly distributed, blotchy or fuzzy may have muted performance qualities. Diamonds with more blue than red can become dark in low lighting conditions.

Of course this is also about taste. Some people love older cuts, step cuts or different shapes. These draw light differently so they do not present the same way as a brilliant does when seen in viewers.

The thing I find more difficult is knowing if the picture was taken correctly - people seem to be able to immediately tell if the picture taker didn't take it properly. A tilt is one thing, too close is another.

Welcome to the club. This is one of the most frustrating and limiting things about 2D flat photos. There are many ways to screw up the photo, because even a few microns of off-axis, lens to stage to table, skew patterns. Then there are also ways to improve 2D photos so they don’t represent the diamond in a micro-sense.

So on the whole these reflective tools are good to get a notion of quality. But making full analysis needs to be made with the diamond in-hand. You really have an advantage on that count! What you see in 3D, being able to check axes and really examine the diamond up, down and from angles, like you would in a microscope, is more valuable than our ability to interpret flat 2D images here.

Wink

 

[Karl_K]

The biggest difference is that ASET and IS are calibrated so the colors mean specific angles where there are no standards for h&a scopes.
The only real requirement for an h&a scope is to demonstrate a high degree of obstruction to pop the hearts and arrows.

Edit: See Wink's post above for the long version. I think he has been taking lesson from Sir John on how to use a lot of words in a post!

 

[Lykame]

Would you mind to share the specs of this diamond?

Sure. It's a 1.65, F, eye clean SI1. It's GIA certificated triple excellent and has medium blue fluorescence. I bought it was some knowledge of diamonds but not quite enough. It scores 2.7 on the HCA (that wasn't a scoring system I was aware of when I bought it). It's AGA Cut grade looks like this:

• Length:7.54
• Width:7.57
• Depth:4.69
• Total Depth:62.08%
• Table percent:57
• Crown height:15
• Girdle (from):Medium
• Girdle (to):Medium
• Polish:Excellent
• Symmetry:Excellent
• Crown angle:35.5
• Pavilion depth:43

• Tab Percent: 1A
• Crown Angle: 2A
• Crown Height: 1A
• Pavilion Depth: 1A
• Girdle: 1A
• Depth: 1A
• Polish: 1A
• Symmetry: 1A
• Total Grade: 1B

Interesting right, to get everything as 1A apart from crown angle and that gives an HCA of 2.7. The pavilion angle is 40.8, which the HCA requests and this other tool does not. I actually think it's a pretty decent diamond considering everything I've read, but I am looking to upgrade it. In the process of trying to upgrade it I have realised a few things and I want to give my diamond a bit more credit than I have been giving it before.

 

[Lykame]

@sledge @Wink @Karl_K @flyingpig you guys are amazing. Thanks so much for taking the time to go through this with me. I have just finished a very long day at work and am using matchsticks to keep my eyes open! I'll read this all through again tomorrow so I can process it but I am so grateful.

Best wishes,
Lydia.

 

[sledge]

Using your data, below is a chart showing where the actual cut could potentially fall. Looks like about a 67% chance of ideal, and 33% chance of excellent.

For that high of a crown, you'd typically want around a 40.6 pavilion, if possible. Not bad though considering you were buying "blind".

Real question -- have you been happy with it?

 

[sledge]

@sledge @Wink @Karl_K @flyingpig you guys are amazing. Thanks so much for taking the time to go through this with me. I have just finished a very long day at work and am using matchsticks to keep my eyes open! I'll read this all through again tomorrow so I can process it but I am so grateful.

Best wishes,
Lydia.

You are very welcome. That's what this community is here for, to help one another. Go get some rest.

What is a long day? I think my longest stint without sleep was around 74 hours. There might have been some drinking involved towards the latter part of that little expedition. I don't really recall, lol.

 

[OoohShiny]

Thanks for the great reply, Wink!

If you are seeking top brightness you should avoid light loss or windowing at the edges or center. Such areas can go dark in normal and low social lighting conditions. Diamonds with more green than red areas will also go darker and appear smaller in normal lighting. Diamonds with blue that is not evenly distributed, blotchy or fuzzy may have muted performance qualities. Diamonds with more blue than red can become dark in low lighting conditions.

This section triggers thoughts in my head about digging/painting and 'brillianteering' (is that the right word?) in an attempt to get edge-to-edge brightness and reduce any light loss or windowing at the edges, but am I correct in thinking that previous attempts have been made to do this (and, indeed, that a certain salies line of 'Black' diamonds is currently doing this?) but it was not always felt to offer a suitable amount of contrast patterning, which (AIUI) increases the perception of brightness of those facets that are reflecting back to the viewer? Although comments about personal taste are, of course, noted

 

[Lykame]

I never meant to say the blue H&A viewer is more difficult to use or read. It is the worst when it comes to assessing light leakage. Yes, you are right. If there is an area with only leakage and no light return whatsoever, it will appear black, which is easy to see. The point is that the H&A viewer is not useless in assessing light leakage/return. It is just not the right tool for it. The IS is superior in that regard.
A picture worth a thousand words
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...set-idealscope-and-ha-images-included.230771/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/need-help-evaluating-aset-idealscope-and-h-a.241308/
See how the ASET and IS images white background exaggerates light leakage and the H&A and ASET images with black background masks it.

Here is the reason why you don't use backlighting for the H&A viewer.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-interpreting-an-ideal-scope.199931/
Experts and some of us can tell which white is leakage and which is contrast. The image is not useless; but it is not easy to interpret either. For beginners, it is just a mess as you can read from the OP's initial comment in the thread. But you can try it; it will be a fun experiment and you will definitely learn something.

This was a really interesting read. It turns out I'm very bad at reading these images!

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/need-help-evaluating-aset-idealscope-and-h-a.241308/

So the images in that one... the first is an idealscope with backlighting, the second is an ASET with no backlighting, the third is an ASET with backlighting and the others are the H&A, right?

So the idealscope image makes that diamond look leaky in the centre to me, but maybe that's because there is backlighting. But as is said, the idealscope needs backlighting. I've seen idealscopes where the centre does not look like that.

In the ASET with no backlighting I get the opposite impression of the centre, because it's so red. I can see the digging at the edges, which personally I'm not a fan of because I think it can be seen visually in a diamond. Adding the backlighting and I can kinda see the centre looks washed out again - but considering there's light coming from the back of the diamond maybe that shouldn't be a surprise!!!

I can see you don't get any light return information at all, really, on the H&A.

Thanks so much for that.

 

[Lykame]

No, it doesn’t. Using light from beneath exposes areas where the diamond is acting like a window, and those areas logically will appear white. But the H&A scope is already designed so light from highest angles is white. That’s why the cap is white on small viewers, and why there is open space above the filament paper, topped by a white disc on larger viewers.

The benefits you can examine in H&A scope: A high level of Optical Precision can increase the size of the diamond’s internal reflections (compound mirrors) and sharpen contrast pattern edges. The limitations are that there is no indication of performance quality. Optical Precision only benefits diamonds known to have high performance as a prerequisite. Additionally, the scope gives a motionless view, but the benefits of Optical Precision occur across a range of tilt.

Thanks so much, yes I totally understand and it was nicely referenced by @flyingpig's link going to an H&A viewing with backlighting - it made the stone look terrible!!!

You actually don’t. The ideal-scope is more user-friendly and is great for round brilliants. The ASET is equally useful, but it’s harder to interpret at first. With practice it’s very easy. And the ASET is more useful if you ever go fancy shape exploring.

Just to clarify, when you say 'you actually don't', you're saying I don't need an idealscope? It would be good if I didn't have to bother obtaining one, but equally I wouldn't want to lose information by not having one, but I also... I mean I guess if I'm going to spend a silly amount of money on a new diamond, and I'm so keen for it to be top performing, perhaps I should bear with the international postage cost. Small change for mind clean...?!

So on the whole these reflective tools are good to get a notion of quality. But making full analysis needs to be made with the diamond in-hand. You really have an advantage on that count! What you see in 3D, being able to check axes and really examine the diamond up, down and from angles, like you would in a microscope, is more valuable than our ability to interpret flat 2D images here.

I really think that's a key point. It can be so easy, especially when reading Pricescope, to get really hung on up on numbers and pictures, but ultimately we're all just trying to find a stone that looks awesome, which you can only tell in person.

 

[Lykame]

The biggest difference is that ASET and IS are calibrated so the colors mean specific angles where there are no standards for h&a scopes.
The only real requirement for an h&a scope is to demonstrate a high degree of obstruction to pop the hearts and arrows.

Edit: See Wink's post above for the long version. I think he has been taking lesson from Sir John on how to use a lot of words in a post!

Hehe, well if it helps, reading your nice concise summary meant that I was able to re-read @Wink's post and understand it better! Thanks.

 

[flyingpig]

So the idealscope image makes that diamond look leaky in the centre to me, but maybe that's because there is backlighting. But as is said, the idealscope needs backlighting. I've seen idealscopes where the centre does not look like that.

Yes. It all has to do with the intensity of backlighting, which you will soon learn, a PITA to get it right. The more intense it is, the more leakage you see.

 

[Lykame]

Using your data, below is a chart showing where the actual cut could potentially fall. Looks like about a 67% chance of ideal, and 33% chance of excellent.

For that high of a crown, you'd typically want around a 40.6 pavilion, if possible. Not bad though considering you were buying "blind".

Real question -- have you been happy with it?

Thanks @sledge, I appreciate that. Quick question, where do you get those charts from? AGS? Also how do you know about drawing a square around them like that? Presumably that's because of the 'averages' that happen.

I mean, it's nice that I did do as well as I did considering I was working off less knowledge. The stone is beautiful. At the time I bought it I knew a bit about the importance of angles. I was struggling slightly [quite a lot] with a vendor who was not particularly sympathetic towards my wish to do number crunching, as it were. This was the closest to the numbers I wanted that he offered me; I lost steam and was intimidated.

I was also disappointed after I bought it about the fact the HCA was 2.7. Sometimes I think that's a dangerous tool - it seems a bit unfair that it scores between ideal and excellent on a chart and only 2.7 on the HCA? I think that affected my opinion of it. I've been caught up in the hype of 'super ideal' and additionally want a stone that's completely mind clean - preferably an F VS1 or 2.

Once I discovered how much changing my stone is going to cost I have been trying to change my opinion about my stone... but I still feel I can do better cut wise and it's affecting my enjoyment of it. I get that that's stupid but now I have this bee in my bonnet; I love diamonds so much, it's worth it to me.... Originally this all started anyway because my setting was never what I wanted, and I was just going to get the setting changed... but the more I read....

Certainly if I sell it the person who receives it will get an absolutely awesome stone, but I have got to the stage where I would like to move on from it. My other option is to just get it reset into more of a dream setting... but knowing myself I think I still wouldn't be satisfied. It might buy me some time to obtain more funds though for a dream stone.

 

[Lykame]

You are very welcome. That's what this community is here for, to help one another. Go get some rest.

What is a long day? I think my longest stint without sleep was around 74 hours. There might have been some drinking involved towards the latter part of that little expedition. I don't really recall, lol.

Haha what were you doing for 74 hours!!! Plus drink that sounds very... headache inducing!!! It also doesn't really sound like that could fall under the category of a 'long day'... I'm not sure what it would be? Long week??? Hahaha.

 

[Lykame]

Yes. It all has to do with the intensity of backlighting, which you will soon learn, a PITA to get it right. The more intense it is, the more leakage you see.

Which presumably then makes it a PITA to interpret. It makes me wish for professionally done images rather than images that I try to do myself, how can I trust myself?!

 

[sledge]

Haha what were you doing for 74 hours!!! Plus drink that sounds very... headache inducing!!! It also doesn't really sound like that could fall under the category of a 'long day'... I'm not sure what it would be? Long week??? Hahaha.

Classified. I could tell you buy I'd have to kill you, lol. Afterwards we were amped and partied a bit.

 

[Lykame]

Classified. I could tell you buy I'd have to kill you, lol. Afterwards we were amped and partied a bit.

Also @sledge I found the AGSL proportion charts, they're cute. Useful, and much quicker than trying to calculate an HCA each time.

 

[sledge]

Also @sledge I found the AGSL proportion charts, they're cute. Useful, and much quicker than trying to calculate an HCA each time.

I'm sorry. I would have linked the charts had I realized you wanted a copy. Keep in mind the charts are just a guide and not a definitive answer. But it should get you close. Idealscope and ASET images will confirm cut quality. H&A images will confirm the symmetry of the cut.

FYI I still double check the HCA score as well and sometimes post them as others like to have that confirmation.

 

[Lykame]

I'm sorry. I would have linked the charts had I realized you wanted a copy. Keep in mind the charts are just a guide and not a definitive answer. But it should get you close. Idealscope and ASET images will confirm cut quality. H&A images will confirm the symmetry of the cut.

FYI I still double check the HCA score as well and sometimes post them as others like to have that confirmation.

Yeah no worries, it was the first thing that came up on a google search so it wasn't difficult.

I think the more information you can gather from each stone the better, and ultimately these are all rejection tools - use them to reject stones and see the rest with your own eyes.

I'm a scientist at heart.

 

[sledge]

Yeah no worries, it was the first thing that came up on a google search so it wasn't difficult.

I think the more information you can gather from each stone the better, and ultimately these are all rejection tools - use them to reject stones and see the rest with your own eyes.

I'm a scientist at heart.

Haha, I get that. I'm a very upbeat and positive person most the time. Yet when I analyze things that matter I tend to look for the negatives which has served me very well in my career as i can accurately pinpoint risk and create alternatives or plans to mitigate that risk.

Unfortunately I've learned it drives many people nuts as they think I just nitpick and find the negative in everything. In reality I just like a real view of my situation so I know exactly what I'm getting in and what I can to do to ensure survival. Not that buying diamonds is life threatening unless your dealing in the underworld markets.

 

[Karl_K]

Thanks for the great reply, Wink!



This section triggers thoughts in my head about digging/painting and 'brillianteering' (is that the right word?) in an attempt to get edge-to-edge brightness and reduce any light loss or windowing at the edges, but am I correct in thinking that previous attempts have been made to do this (and, indeed, that a certain salies line of 'Black' diamonds is currently doing this?) but it was not always felt to offer a suitable amount of contrast patterning, which (AIUI) increases the perception of brightness of those facets that are reflecting back to the viewer? Although comments about personal taste are, of course, noted

Painting as done to get the all red reflector images was marketing over appearance.
There was a negative impact on scintillation.
It became more watery vs sharply on and off.

To be fair there were some that liked the look or did not notice the difference.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I couldn't read through all the responses, but hopefully you got a clear answer that you do NOT need an idealscope if you have an ASET scope! I prefer the ASET scope information.

I don't even use the HCA when searching for diamonds. I use the following measurements which most superideal cut stones fall within.

Table: 54-57

Depth: 60-62.3

Crown angle: 34.0-35.0

Pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9

 

[Lykame]

I couldn't read through all the responses, but hopefully you got a clear answer that you do NOT need an idealscope if you have an ASET scope! I prefer the ASET scope information.

I don't even use the HCA when searching for diamonds. I use the following measurements which most superideal cut stones fall within.

Table: 54-57

Depth: 60-62.3

Crown angle: 34.0-35.0

Pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9

Thank you; it's very nice to have it so explicitly stated.

I've seen those angles around and someone else also very kindly referenced them for me, thank you. It was really useful. Interestingly the other day I saw @whitewave suggested the following:

Depth 60.5-62.1
Table 55-57
Pavilion 40.6-40.8
Crown 34-34.5

This was followed by the more broad angles. I thought that was interesting... I figured presumably that was something that preferenced fire? A lot of people on here talk about their sweet spot for crown and pavillion angles. Do you have one?