Hearts & Arrows: How to label different standards?

[JohnQuixote]

Not everyone will want a Hearts & Arrows diamond, but there is a need for a set of established criteria to divide standards in diamonds marketed as Hearts & Arrows for those who do have an interest in this type of cut.

Unlike AGS0 cut proportions versus AGS3, or a D in color versus G, the distinctions made between different levels of precision in H&A cuts now depends on our ability to EDUCATE and ILLUSTRATE differences. PriceScope is great for this at-large, but new consumers have an intimidating learning curve ahead of them if they want to seriously analyze nuts and bolts.

Brian Gavin''s presentation at the International Diamond Cut Conference in Moscow last April included a set of criteria for grading H&A (the basics of which are linked HERE (hearts) and HERE (arrows) ). That system is extremely rigid, however. Also, in that system a diamond is either a "TRUE" H&A or it isn''t. There is no middle ground.

Since there are a growing number of diamonds being sold as Hearts & Arrows that display only a simulacrum of what the "H&A aristocracy" might consider TRUE H&A it seems a system is needed for identifying different levels of quality in these cuts which the cruising consumer can easily understand.

Common usage of the term H&A dilutes topflight vendors'' attempts to imply higher standards for the H&A cut without parading a litany of angles, percentages and detailed photos to illustrate differences. On the other hand, some people who seek a H&A diamond may be happy owning one from (insert store “X”) which does not meet the standards others hold to.

It does not seem likely that labs will get into the business of grading H&A. So...what to do?

 

[Hest88]

I think the problem is that once you get beyond a strict definition you''re going to find too many variables to define "almost true." What if half of the hearts are perfect? What if all the hearts are a teensy bit askew. What if more than a teensy bit? What if slightly more than a teensy bit? I almost think it''s just as good for a jeweler to say, "This is not a true H&A, but to my professional eye it''s very close."

Nothing is going to stop some jewelers from marketing non-true H&As are H&A anyway.

 

[strmrdr]

To me it either is or it isnt h&a.
Where to draw that line is a better question.
For example niceice has some in stock that I would call H&A but they wont because their standards are higher than just about everyones including my own.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Hest & Strm,

So you would prefer having one set of parameters. Such a system would be like the AGS system of giving a stone a 0 only if all parameters judged = 0. If any one parameter is less than 0 that stone fails to "make the cut" for a 0.

On a professional note - I agree with you.

However, the reality is that the market is already flooded with H&A which, as Strm notes, do not meet standards many would hope for. Is there a way to stop the term H&A from being diluted? (probably not) Okay, if not, do we need to provide consumers with a subset of criteria... H&A Ex, H&A VG, H&A G, etc (sic)? I think we must! If so, by what miracle would we all come to consensus? (you''re not going to agree on a set of criteria that makes "your" H&A look "lesser" than others).

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/18/2004 10:43:57 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

do we need to provide consumers with a subset of criteria...

Here''s a new set! At Good Old Gold (surprise ?)

The page redas:

"For example we see and witness Hearts & Arrows diamonds that have light performance that varies from the worst to best, yet are all classified as "Hearts & Arrows" diamonds ..." And there is a table with examples too HERE (scroll down).

 

[noobie]

Date: 11/18/2004 10:43:57 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
Hest & Strm,

On a professional note - I agree with you.

However, the reality is that the market is already flooded with H&A which, as Strm notes, do not meet standards many would hope for. Is there a way to stop the term H&A from being diluted? (probably not) Okay, if not, do we need to provide consumers with a subset of criteria... H&A Ex, H&A VG, H&A G, etc (sic)? I think we must! If so, by what miracle would we all come to consensus? (you''re not going to agree on a set of criteria that makes ''your'' H&A look ''lesser'' than others).

As long as there are some people that think they can gain a marketing advantage with the term it will be abused. I came across a vendor that offers Ideal H&A cut stones that are drop shipped! How do I know? I found the same stone in another vendor''s drop shipped listing.

That''s why I don''t pay any attention to H&A description anymore. If I''m looking specifically for a H&A stone I know what to look for. Unfortunately many people will contine to be misled.

Any criteria or assistance to them would be helpful, but I don''t think the abuse will stop.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/18/2004 10:50:15 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 11/18/2004 10:43:57 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

do we need to provide consumers with a subset of criteria...

Here''s a new set! At Good Old Gold (surprise ?)

The page redas:

''For example we see and witness Hearts & Arrows diamonds that have light performance that varies from the worst to best, yet are all classified as ''Hearts & Arrows'' diamonds ...'' And there is a table with examples too HERE (scroll down).

Hi Ana,

Here is the issue: That system is based on Brilliance Scope data. I would offer that for the same reason that we cannot judge the beauty of any diamond based on BS data, neither can H&A beauty be judged this way.

There are BS pundits and BS critics, but the long and short of it is that a portion of the population consider the BS to be both irrelevant and flawed: The machine rewards overages of white light and punishes diamonds cut for an abundance of dispersion. Further, it attempts to analyze what the eyes will see - and your eyes may see beauty differently than someone else''s (this has been visited and revisited many times). Unlike Ideal Scope - which shows you actual light leakage, or Sarin - which conducts measurements of actual proportions, BS is trying to make judgements in taste.

I believe that the only relevant tool for analysis of H&A precision is the H&A viewer, which shows the actual physical symmetry of the stone. It is concrete evidence of exactly how the stone is cut.

These pages (from the PS tutorial) might be a good starting point to discuss criteria for judging H&A optical & physical symmetry.

"Phony" Hearts & Arrows
Grading Hearts
Grading Arrows

Thoughts?

 

[strmrdr]

The problem is that there isnt any way to measure h&a at this time other than looking at it then you get into a he said he said situation.
Give me the real h&a pictures and I will decide for myself....sound familar :}

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/18/2004 10:58

8 AM
Author: noobie

style="WIDTH: 0.28%; HEIGHT: 1px">

As long as there are some people that think they can gain a marketing advantage with the term it will be abused. I came across a vendor that offers Ideal H&A cut stones that are drop shipped! How do I know? I found the same stone in another vendor''s drop shipped listing.

That''s why I don''t pay any attention to H&A description anymore. If I''m looking specifically for a H&A stone I know what to look for. Unfortunately many people will contine to be misled.

Any criteria or assistance to them would be helpful, but I don''t think the abuse will stop.

Part of this is a desire to keep the term h&a as a marketing advantage so its marketing on both sides.

But like with 8* the compitition has caught up and there are a lot more players in the game.

It will be interesting to see how it shakes out :}

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/18/2004 11:30:45 AM
Author: strmrdr
The problem is that there isnt any way to measure h&a at this time other than looking at it then you get into a he said he said situation.
Give me the real h&a pictures and I will decide for myself....sound familar :}

Strm. Gotcha.

I think we agree on the most relevant point: The only way to determine the quality if to analyze what is seen through the H&A viewer.

Another important aspect (in my opinion) is that a stone purported to be True H&A should be graded Ideal/Ideal (Ex/Ex) in polish and meet point symmetry. Opinions?

In the H&A viewer you may observe the following:

Total uniformity and symmetry in both hearts and arrows patterns.
Acceptability of any splits in hearts (if present).
No broken, split or different sized hearts.
Hearts separate from arrowheads above.
No broken shafts, misshaped arrow heads or misalignment of shaft to head.
Arrow points meeting the girdle.
No distortion caused by facet yaw.
No unevenness caused by extreme variance.

What would you add to the checklist?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/18/2004 11:50

6 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 11/18/2004 11:30:45 AM
Author: strmrdr
The problem is that there isnt any way to measure h&a at this time other than looking at it then you get into a he said he said situation.
Give me the real h&a pictures and I will decide for myself....sound familar :}

Strm. Gotcha.

I think we agree on the most relevant point: The only way to determine the quality if to analyze what is seen through the H&A viewer.

Another important aspect (in my opinion) is that a stone purported to be True H&A should be graded Ideal/Ideal (Ex/Ex) in polish and meet point symmetry. Opinions?

In the H&A viewer you may observe the following:

Total uniformity and symmetry in both hearts and arrows patterns.
Acceptability of any splits in hearts (if present).
No broken, split or different sized hearts.
Hearts separate from arrowheads above.
No broken shafts, misshaped arrow heads or misalignment of shaft to head.
Arrow points meeting the girdle.
No distortion caused by facet yaw.
No unevenness caused by extreme variance.

vg/vg is ok with me as long as the price reflects it and everything else is there.
For the super-ideal title it needs to be ex/ex but for just the h&a title I dont feel it does.

I pretty much agree with the rest.
But would add a well centered pattern to the list.
But there is always going to be some variation finding the cut off point is the problem.

Unfortunatly saying that I know it when I see it doesnt help someone else learn it.
Learning to spot the slight variations in the patterns isnt easy.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/18/2004 12

3:50 PM
Author: strmrdr

Unfortunatly saying that I know it when I see it doesnt help someone else learn it.
Learning to spot the slight variations in the patterns isnt easy.

I agree: There is a steep learning curve for newbies.

It's a reason some vendors may choose to have a written guarantee of standards and provide H&A photos on request, rather than parading a litany of images which look almost identical: The bulk of consumers may not be able to decipher all the potential problems :}

"Well-centered pattern" on the checklist - good call.