True Hearts?????? is this stone a true heart?

[John P]

Test two (harder)

: Please identify the HEART below (select only one).

 

[John P]

While the previous posts were intended as humor I hope they illustrate a point about a body of work called a “HEARTS and arrows” tutorial.

So, do all precision-cut diamonds show the traditional “true” Hearts & Arrows pattern? The answer is no. The examples below fall outside the established look of traditional H&A diamonds but when their patterns are crisp and uniform it indicates an equal level of cutting precision and craftsmanship. All can have top light performance, but with different attributes.

Short Lower Halves = Wide Patterns

This diamond has lower halves too short to create traditional Hearts & Arrows (70%).
The wider pavilion mains create stretched patterns in the pavilion & fat arrows in the crown.

 

[John P]

Long Lower Halves = Narrow Patterns

This diamond has lower halves too long to create traditional Hearts & Arrows (85%).
The narrow pavilion mains create V-like patterns in the pavilion & skinny arrows in the crown.

 

[John P]

Medium Lower Halves = Traditional Hearts & Arrows

This diamond has lower halves which create traditional Hearts & Arrows (78%).
The pavilion mains create traditional hearts in the pavilion & arrows in the crown.

 

[John P]

All can have top light performance but with different attributes.

The look of the patterns seen in a H&A viewer is completely independent of light performance. Just because a diamond has crisp patterns (whether traditional H&A, wide or narrow) does not mean it will have top light performance.

In diamonds with top light performance the different looking patterns can all have equal visual appeal to the eye, and equal mental appeal to enthusiasts of cut precision.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/17/2008 9:23:19 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Carnevil,

A 'true' H&A will vary by definition depending upon whom you are talking to.

Some people limit this definition to mean only those diamonds which demonstrate a certain level of craftsmanship reflected in the diamonds optical symmetry (as observed through H&A imagery) and lower girdle facet length that falls between 75%-77% producing what the PriceScope tutorial calls a 'closed Heart' image...

Actually Rhino, some H&A diamonds are cut with lower halves up to 80% (81.5% d) and they still conform to the tutorial parameters for generating a pavilion pattern that looks like hearts. No big deal, but you might want to know.

Your grievance seems to be that the PS “Hearts & Arrows” tutorial does not define the stone you’re talking about as having “hearts.” I agree with you - and I agree with the tutorial. I don’t think you should sweat it... Your lower halves create a different-looking pattern. No problem. A similar example is Eightstar; they cut lower halves short enough that the patterns look like wide “lawn darts;” and it's a reason those diamonds (which are fabulous) are not considered “Hearts & Arrows.” I looked at your stones and the optical symmetry is great but the precision-cut experts I know would not classify your pavilion patterns as showing “heart” shapes. But it's no sweat...for example, we’re quite proud of our Princess cuts, but no one would not call their pavilion patterning “hearts” either. It doesn't take anything away from what we can put forward about them. You have a lot of "proof of performance" at your command.

In fact, I think you have an opportunity to distinguish yourself here. Just like Eightstar’s diamonds aren’t called “H&A” (also because of lower half length) but those diamonds are a great success, you have an opportunity to give your precision-patterning a different title. It makes more sense to me for you to advertise them as what they are rather than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You have a unique look you are marketing. Don’t you think it would be easier to say “The diamonds I feature aren’t H&A diamonds they are (Rhino) diamonds.” I think you and your brand have enough presence to be larger than this issue.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/18/2008 3:14:29 PM
Author: strmrdr

Interesting Wink so in your opinion a properly cut fic can never be h&a?
Either h&a is a cosmetic feature or a performance one it cant be both.
If its a performance feature then by eliminating clefts it is hurting the performance potential of an entire class of diamonds if the cutter cuts for your opinion on h&a as well as limiting consumer choice in other combinations where long lgf% is neutral performance wise and may be preferred looks wise by many consumers.
If it is a cosmetic feature then a whole lot of marketing is wrong.

Actually it was a cosmetic issue (many years ago) as much as it was a performance issue, so by definition it is both.

I agree that optical symmetry definitely plays a part in diamond performance (duh, right?) – and not just in rounds – other shapes and makes as well. That is a different discussion than whether a diamond fits is in the historical classification that shows traditional, purposely-named “Hearts & Arrows.”

This is a somewhat provincial (meaning PS fishbowl) discussion, since the “look” of these patterns far pre-dates Pricescope and current performance measures - and has been largely agreed-on since they were first cut in Japan. The Pricescope tutorial is simply a well-documented definition of those historical and successful parameters.

Take a look at the original Japanese examples. Look at the parameters of those labs who have evaluated H&A, then and now. Look at the world’s largest seller of branded Hearts & Arrows diamonds - Hearts On Fire - their H&A patterns conform to the tutorial here. Blue Nile sells more diamonds online than any other seller and their Hearts & Arrows tutorial (link) is in-line with the tutorial here. There are hundreds of H&A examples online conforming to the definitions that have been documented in the PS tutorial for some years. You can image-google “hearts and arrows” and browse the heart examples to see what I mean (link).

We all know Princess cuts, Asschers, etc. don’t show “hearts” but they can still have great performance. We all know some rounds that don’t look like the traditional “hearts” pattern can have great performance. No sweat. No problem. The Pricescope H&A tutorial is not about this. It’s simply about how to create – and judge – precision patterning in a modern round brilliant that creates that traditional HEART shape as it is historically known.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/18/2008 6:50:52 PM
Author: John Pollard
Test two (harder)

: Please identify the HEART below (select only one).

none of them look like a heart to me...
here is a heart...

 

[John P]

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:16:41 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/18/2008 3:14:29 PM

Author: strmrdr


Interesting Wink so in your opinion a properly cut fic can never be h&a?

Either h&a is a cosmetic feature or a performance one it cant be both.

If its a performance feature then by eliminating clefts it is hurting the performance potential of an entire class of diamonds if the cutter cuts for your opinion on h&a as well as limiting consumer choice in other combinations where long lgf% is neutral performance wise and may be preferred looks wise by many consumers.

If it is a cosmetic feature then a whole lot of marketing is wrong.

Actually it was a cosmetic issue (many years ago) as much as it was a performance issue, so by definition it is both.


I agree that optical symmetry definitely plays a part in diamond performance (duh, right?) – and not just in rounds – other shapes and makes as well. That is a different discussion than whether a diamond fits is in the historical classification that shows traditional, purposely-named “Hearts & Arrows.”


This is a somewhat provincial (meaning PS fishbowl) discussion, since the “look” of these patterns far pre-dates Pricescope and current performance measures - and has been largely agreed-on since they were first cut in Japan. The Pricescope tutorial is simply a well-documented definition of those historical and successful parameters.


Take a look at the original Japanese examples. Look at the parameters of those labs who have evaluated H&A, then and now. Look at the world’s largest seller of branded Hearts & Arrows diamonds - Hearts On Fire - their H&A patterns conform to the tutorial here. Blue Nile sells more diamonds online than any other seller and their Hearts & Arrows tutorial (link) is in-line with the tutorial here. There are hundreds of H&A examples online conforming to the definitions that have been documented on PS for years. You can image-google “hearts and arrows” and browse the heart examples to see what I mean (link).


We all know Princess cuts, Asschers, etc. don’t show “hearts” but they can still have great performance. We all know some rounds that don’t look like the traditional “hearts” pattern can have great performance. No sweat. No problem. The Pricescope H&A tutorial is not about this. It’s simply about how to create – and judge – precision patterning in a modern round brilliant that creates that traditional HEART shape as it is historically known.

and proportion based grading systems are the greatest thing since sliced bread if you go back far enough.
Times change and holding on to the past when new research shows it is wrong is not the right path.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:19:42 PM
Author: John Pollard

lol

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:20:42 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/18/2008 7:16:41 PM

Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/18/2008 3:14:29 PM


Author: strmrdr



Interesting Wink so in your opinion a properly cut fic can never be h&a?


Either h&a is a cosmetic feature or a performance one it cant be both.


If its a performance feature then by eliminating clefts it is hurting the performance potential of an entire class of diamonds if the cutter cuts for your opinion on h&a as well as limiting consumer choice in other combinations where long lgf% is neutral performance wise and may be preferred looks wise by many consumers.


If it is a cosmetic feature then a whole lot of marketing is wrong.

Actually it was a cosmetic issue (many years ago) as much as it was a performance issue, so by definition it is both.



I agree that optical symmetry definitely plays a part in diamond performance (duh, right?) – and not just in rounds – other shapes and makes as well. That is a different discussion than whether a diamond fits is in the historical classification that shows traditional, purposely-named “Hearts & Arrows.”



This is a somewhat provincial (meaning PS fishbowl) discussion, since the “look” of these patterns far pre-dates Pricescope and current performance measures - and has been largely agreed-on since they were first cut in Japan. The Pricescope tutorial is simply a well-documented definition of those historical and successful parameters.



Take a look at the original Japanese examples. Look at the parameters of those labs who have evaluated H&A, then and now. Look at the world’s largest seller of branded Hearts & Arrows diamonds - Hearts On Fire - their H&A patterns conform to the tutorial here. Blue Nile sells more diamonds online than any other seller and their Hearts & Arrows tutorial (link) is in-line with the tutorial here. There are hundreds of H&A examples online conforming to the definitions that have been documented on PS for years. You can image-google “hearts and arrows” and browse the heart examples to see what I mean (link).



We all know Princess cuts, Asschers, etc. don’t show “hearts” but they can still have great performance. We all know some rounds that don’t look like the traditional “hearts” pattern can have great performance. No sweat. No problem. The Pricescope H&A tutorial is not about this. It’s simply about how to create – and judge – precision patterning in a modern round brilliant that creates that traditional HEART shape as it is historically known.

and proportion based grading systems are the greatest thing since sliced bread if you go back far enough.

Times change and holding on to the past when new research shows it is wrong is not the right path.

I love it when John comes out of hiding and says what I was trying to say, only SO MUCH better.

Storm,

I don''t think John or I are trying to hold on to the past so much as to change the future. The old terminology, H&A does not fit our needs now. John is right, Jon''s presence is strong enough to address the issue of performance and appearance without having to try to force his beautiful stones into a category that they do not fit in, nor should they.

Let''s all move towards the light and find new terminology that DOES fit all of the high optical symmetry patterns and move beyond what we once believed into what we now know.

Just my opinion of course, but I think Jon and I might be closer in opinion than people seem to think.

Wink

 

[John P]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:20:42 PM
Author: strmrdr

and proportion based grading systems are the greatest thing since sliced bread if you go back far enough.
Times change and holding on to the past when new research shows it is wrong is not the right path.

New research has nothing to do with what creates a heart pattern versus what creates geometry that looks like something else. It''s not wrong or right: A heart is a heart. A duck is a duck. A lawn dart is a lawn dart.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:30:27 PM
Author: Wink


I love it when John comes out of hiding and says what I was trying to say, only SO MUCH better.


Storm,


I don't think John or I are trying to hold on to the past so much as to change the future. The old terminology, H&A does not fit our needs now. John is right, Jon's presence is strong enough to address the issue of performance and appearance without having to try to force his beautiful stones into a category that they do not fit in, nor should they.


Let's all move towards the light and find new terminology that DOES fit all of the high optical symmetry patterns and move beyond what we once believed into what we now know.


Just my opinion of course, but I think Jon and I might be closer in opinion than people seem to think.


Wink

The problem is Wink that true H&A is best is how it is percieved.
Not going to pick on anyone but a post in this thread proves that.
We know that optical symmetry combined with proper angles is really the best but that is hard and H&A is easy which is why the marketing wheels keep spinning.
Can a single vendor or even 2 or 3 get off the merry-go-round and still survive in today's market?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:31:36 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/18/2008 7:20:42 PM

Author: strmrdr


and proportion based grading systems are the greatest thing since sliced bread if you go back far enough.

Times change and holding on to the past when new research shows it is wrong is not the right path.

New research has nothing to do with what creates a heart pattern versus what creates geometry that looks like something else. It''s not wrong or right: A heart is a heart. A duck is a duck. A lawn dart is a lawn dart.

Newer research certainly does show that saying a clefty heart image is bad is flat out wrong in some cases it may be the best for that particular angle combination.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:30:27 PM
Author: Wink


I love it when John comes out of hiding and says what I was trying to say, only SO MUCH better.

Storm,

I don''t think John or I are trying to hold on to the past so much as to change the future. The old terminology, H&A does not fit our needs now. John is right, Jon''s presence is strong enough to address the issue of performance and appearance without having to try to force his beautiful stones into a category that they do not fit in, nor should they.

Let''s all move towards the light and find new terminology that DOES fit all of the high optical symmetry patterns and move beyond what we once believed into what we now know.

Just my opinion of course, but I think Jon and I might be closer in opinion than people seem to think.

Wink

Actually I have not called them "Hearts & Arrows" images with other pros for some time. I adopted Paul''s "Symmetry (pavilion) & Contrast (crown)" terminology. I used to confuse the heck out of people I was training by referring to the "H&A" photos we take of our princess cuts. They would think..."uhh, what hearts is he talking about?"

I should confess something to Paul - presuming he will read it here. Since "symmetry" is a word already in-use in our business - and because we work hard to unconfuse people about the difference between lab-graded sym and optical sym - I have been using the terms "PRECISION & Contrast" images instead of H&A. It seems appropriate, and when I talk about the "precision" image the pros I''m training now know it''s the (hearts/Vs/Xs/lawn-darts...ducks...).

PS: Wink, I''m just forced to be concise. I have not been married as long as you and still have a lot of "quality time" coupons to redeem.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:38:07 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/18/2008 7:30:27 PM

Author: Wink



I love it when John comes out of hiding and says what I was trying to say, only SO MUCH better.



Storm,



I don''t think John or I are trying to hold on to the past so much as to change the future. The old terminology, H&A does not fit our needs now. John is right, Jon''s presence is strong enough to address the issue of performance and appearance without having to try to force his beautiful stones into a category that they do not fit in, nor should they.



Let''s all move towards the light and find new terminology that DOES fit all of the high optical symmetry patterns and move beyond what we once believed into what we now know.



Just my opinion of course, but I think Jon and I might be closer in opinion than people seem to think.



Wink

The problem is Wink that true H&A is best is how it is percieved.

Not going to pick on anyone but a post in this thread proves that.

We know that optical symetry combined with proper angles is really the best but that is hard and H&A is easy which is why the marketing wheels keep spinning.

Can a single vendor or even 2 or 3 get off the merry-go-round and still survive in today''s market?

Perhaps, especially if they have strong presences. For sure what none of them can do is force a new definition of H&A nor do I believe it is right to try. Yes, that is the easier path, but I do not believe that calling a duck a H&A is going to work, especially when those who cut the traditional patterns are going to keep calling it a duck. Jon can call that pattern H&A until the cows come home, and to little avail as others will denigrate it. Or he can work with others like Paul who believe that the old terminology needs to undergo an evolution and be part of the path to enlightenment. (pun intended)

H&A only became big on the market a few years ago, many in the public still do not know what it is. They will just as happily learn the new as they did the old, but only if some of us prepare the new and convincingly so. I believe that Paul Slegers and John Pollard are uniquely suited to starting the journey down that path, and I think Jon could well be part of the group if he chooses. I know that Paul will continue to work towards what he believes and what he is learning as he continues to study and grow. It will be interesting to look back in ten years and see what has transpired.

Wink

 

[John P]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:41:27 PM
Author: strmrdr

Newer research certainly does show that saying a clefty heart image is bad is flat out wrong in some cases it may be the best for that particular angle combination.

Huh? Where is it said that a cleft creates a performance issue.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:45:39 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/18/2008 7:30:27 PM

Author: Wink



I love it when John comes out of hiding and says what I was trying to say, only SO MUCH better.


Storm,


I don''t think John or I are trying to hold on to the past so much as to change the future. The old terminology, H&A does not fit our needs now. John is right, Jon''s presence is strong enough to address the issue of performance and appearance without having to try to force his beautiful stones into a category that they do not fit in, nor should they.


Let''s all move towards the light and find new terminology that DOES fit all of the high optical symmetry patterns and move beyond what we once believed into what we now know.


Just my opinion of course, but I think Jon and I might be closer in opinion than people seem to think.


Wink

Actually I have not called them ''Hearts & Arrows'' images with other pros for some time. I adopted Paul''s ''Symmetry (pavilion) & Contrast (crown)'' terminology. I used to confuse the heck out of people I was training by referring to the ''H&A'' photos we take of our princess cuts. They would think...''uhh, what hearts is he talking about?''


I should confess something to Paul - presuming he will read it here. Since ''symmetry'' is a word already in-use in our business - and because we work hard to unconfuse people about the difference between lab-graded sym and optical sym - I have been using the terms ''PRECISION & Contrast'' images instead of H&A. It seems appropriate, and when I talk about the ''precision'' image the pros I''m training now know it''s the (hearts/Vs/Xs/lawn-darts...ducks...).


PS: Wink, I''m just forced to be concise. I have not been married as long as you and still have a lot of ''quality time'' coupons to redeem.

Dang, just ruined another keyboard... I was having a cold one, been working in the yard getting ready for thirty or forty people to show up for a BBQ and came in to check this thread. Do you have ANY idea how bad it hurts to snort a beer through your nose?

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:53:50 PM
Author: Wink


Dang, just ruined another keyboard... I was having a cold one, been working in the yard getting ready for thirty or forty people to show up for a BBQ and came in to check this thread. Do you have ANY idea how bad it hurts to snort a beer through your nose?

Not as bad as Mexican rice. Just trust me on this one.

 

[Rhino]

hey guys,

Geesh ... it always seems that I'm about to head out on vacation when I'm talking about a favorite subject of mine as is the case this today.

John, Wink ... Thank you kindly for your input and I totally hear where you guys are coming from. We've all seen the transformations that have taken place via the net and will continue to. Hats off to those of us who are keeping on the cutting edge.

I think what my biggest problem is, regardless of how one defines a true Hearts, is the notion that is placed in a consumers mind regarding the patterning and the effects of that when you lengthen and shorten lower girdles.

As has been pointed out (thanks for the clarifications on your opinion John/Wink) lengthening or shortening them, yet maintaining optical precision combined with optimal optics does not decrease the quality, the precision or craftsmanship of the diamond. One reason why I hopped in this thread is because I get emails/phone calls from consumers communicating to me that they somehow feel they are getting a less than the best diamond because there are either faint to slight clefts in a Hearts pattern. While possibly not the intention of the PS Hearts tutorial it is what's being communicated to the end consumer.

They are made to feel they are not getting a truely rare less than 1%'r when in fact they can be looking at a diamond with pavilion/crown/table tolerances with less than 5 degree/% variance, ultra precision cut diamond that smokes every technology under the sun that grades for optical performance, falls smack in the GIA/AGS zenith but because of a faint cleft (which is concise and consistent in all the Hearts, JUST like the one used in the PS Hearts tutorial, which btw looks like my own image

) FAILS.

The consumer gets that.. THEY FAIL.

All I can say about that is what a load of #$%&* that is being fed into the mind of the consumer who reads the PS Hearts tutorial!!! That is deceptive & misleading.

Wink ... I stand with you regarding the use of the term "Symmetry" images but personally prefer the grading of "Optical Symmetry". It reflects true craftsmanship regardless of the pattern because when it comes to face up appearance there is no *best* but that which the end consumer prefers. John it's funny you posted the images of the shorter lower girdle variety because I'm thinking of a run of those (precision cut with optimal optics) to have around as we get requests for OEC with chunky appearance.

Ok ... unless the place I'm heading has Internet access at my cabin on the lake

I will not be around until the following Tuesday (29th).

Peace all,

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/19/2008 9:15:54 AM
Author: Rhino
hey guys,

Geesh ... it always seems that I''m about to head out on vacation when I''m talking about a favorite subject of mine as is the case this today.

John, Wink ... Thank you kindly for your input and I totally hear where you guys are coming from. We''ve all seen the transformations that have taken place via the net and will continue to. Hats off to those of us who are keeping on the cutting edge.

I think what my biggest problem is, regardless of how one defines a true Hearts, is the notion that is placed in a consumers mind regarding the patterning and the effects of that when you lengthen and shorten lower girdles.

As has been pointed out (thanks for the clarifications on your opinion John/Wink) lengthening or shortening them, yet maintaining optical precision combined with optimal optics does not decrease the quality, the precision or craftsmanship of the diamond. One reason why I hopped in this thread is because I get emails/phone calls from consumers communicating to me that they somehow feel they are getting a less than the best diamond because there are either faint to slight clefts in a Hearts pattern. While possibly not the intention of the PS Hearts tutorial it is what''s being communicated to the end consumer.

They are made to feel they are not getting a truely rare less than 1%''r when in fact they can be looking at a diamond with pavilion/crown/table tolerances with less than 5 degree/% variance, ultra precision cut diamond that smokes every technology under the sun that grades for optical performance, falls smack in the GIA/AGS zenith but because of a faint cleft (which is concise and consistent in all the Hearts, JUST like the one used in the PS Hearts tutorial, which btw looks like my own image

) FAILS.

The consumer gets that.. THEY FAIL.

All I can say about that is what a load of #$%&* that is being fed into the mind of the consumer who reads the PS Hearts tutorial!!! That is deceptive & misleading.

Wink ... I stand with you regarding the use of the term ''Symmetry'' images but personally prefer the grading of ''Optical Symmetry''. It reflects true craftsmanship regardless of the pattern because when it comes to face up appearance there is no *best* but that which the end consumer prefers. John it''s funny you posted the images of the shorter lower girdle variety because I''m thinking of a run of those (precision cut with optimal optics) to have around as we get requests for OEC with chunky appearance.

Ok ... unless the place I''m heading has Internet access at my cabin on the lake

I will not be around until the following Tuesday (29th).

Peace all,

While you are on vacation then your assignment is to write a Optical Symmetry tutorial and submit it for peer review and commentary then have it submitted to Andre for publication. The Hearts and Arrows tutorial is correct in what it is describing, the hearts and arrows patterning as it is traditionally known at the time it was developed. Whether or not it needs to be changed I will leave to Brian the Cutter who wrote it, as I defer to his great knowledge about the subject.

I was incorrect in stating symmety images, I was thinking Optical Symmetry but my fingers betrayed me. You and I know all too well that physical symmetry and optical symmetry are two entirely different items, yet I believe that John Pollard is totally correct in stating that this is confusing to the consumer and to many professionals, as evidenced by my own failure to correctly state optical symmetry when that was what I was clearly thinking. I believe that John is correct that they should be called something different, like his concept of precision images. I might carry it a word further, cutting precision images.

These are interesting times and there are many interesting things coming down the pike that will further enpower the consumer to see who is and who is not telling the truth. I am excited to continue being part of the trade during these fascinating times and look forward to being able to share the good news with my clients as it continues to unfold.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

this is my thoughts on names for the 3 symmetries.

meet point/lab == symmetry
optical == alignment
physical/scanned == tightness

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/18/2008 3:14:48 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 7/18/2008 12:37:37 AM
Author: rcrosier
The stone shows poor hearts, but it does, in a way, have hearts. There are many well cut diamonds that have these more v-shaped hearts. Aside from the cleave between the two bulbs of the heart, the hearts are also very narrow... If you put this in front of an H&A expert, I seriously doubt it would qualify. Go to whiteflash.com and look at every one of there ACA H&A diamonds. None of them have these V-shaped hearts. I''ve never seen this diamond, but I''m sure it is cut very well. Despite this, I would not categorize this as being a true H&A. I have found similar images of stones in local big-name jewelry stores around my area that are labeled H&A stones by the store... If you really want an H&A ideal cut, this is sadly not a good choice...

Lower girdle facet length is a matter of preference. To insinuate that one is inferior to the other is to suggest that your taste is inferior because it is not the same as mine.


Neither of these diamonds display better precision, better optical symmetry or better light performance than the other.

To suggest otherwise is just plain misleading and this is my problem with the PS Hearts tutorial. It leads people to the faulty conclusion that rcrosier arrived at.

Jon, I think you''re reading into comments that aren''t there. The first person to even broach the possibility of these diamonds being ''inferior'' was you.....in your initial post in this thread. (Quote: one is not better than the other. To suggest otherwise is misleading information.)

Prior to that post, not a single poster suggested that the diamonds were lacking in precision, optical symmetry, or light performance. Not a single person said that H&A diamonds were better than these V-diamonds. No one even intimated that the diamonds were inferior in any way.

The only thing said is that the stone wouldn''t qualify by the strictest definition of hearts.....and that is a true statement. I''ve highlighted every comment made by RCrosier, and the only thing he''s suggested is that they aren''t good examples of hearts.....and he''s right.

I''ve been on Pricescope for many years now.....going back to the days when your inventory used to more closely mirror the patterning shown in the tutorial, and even in those days, every vendor here was careful to say "H&A doesn''t guarantee performance. It was regularly pointed out that you can have a good H&A pattern and the stone can still have a performance fault." That''s been a consistent message for years, so I''m not sure why all of the sudden there''s a panic about a potential inferiority complex for non H&A stones.

I agree with Wink, though - to insist that these stones are H&A is a waste of time. That energy would be better applied educating customers that H&A is but *one* flavor, and that just as in real life, individual preferences may vary. The good news is....there are enough flavors around to satisfy every appetite.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/18/2008 3:42:58 PM
Author: Rhino

Then you get into the debate of which Hearts image do you think is best or my Hearts image is better than your Hearts image. This would be a tangible arguement if ...

a. Diamonds were mounted upside down.
b. Human beings were H&A spectacles every time they looked down at a diamond and preferred that their viewers saw the pattern they wanted others to see, open or closed.

With due respect, the argument you seem to be making here is that if you can''t see it (tangible), it doesn''t matter.

By that reasoning, one could make a case that we should wipe out IF and VVS clarity grades (and maybe even VS) because hey.....who walks around with a loupe attached to their eyeball? If you aren''t going to view your diamond that way, then we shouldn''t count it.

I guess we''ll have to extend that to color, too, since most people can''t see the color difference between D and E, or D and F. By the same reasoning, we should acknowledge that color doesn''t really matter anyway unless you''re going to wear your diamond face down on a white card, right?

The point I''m trying to make here, tongue-in-cheek, is that H&A is no different than several other elements of a stone. Some people like the mind-clean of knowing they have a VVS stone, even though they wouldn''t visually be able discern the difference between a VVS1 and a VS1 under normal wear viewing conditions. Some people like the mind-clean of a colorless stone, even though they wouldn''t be able to discern a difference between their colorless F stone and a near-colorless G stone in normal viewing conditions. Similarly, some people like the idea of having a perfect hearts pattern even though they wouldn''t be able to see it under daily viewing conditions and wouldn''t be able to discern between the ''true'' H&A stone and the one posted by the original poster (which I don''t consider to be a ''true'' H&A either).

That said, not *all* buyers crave H&A, just as not all buyers crave VVS clarity, and not all buyers want F or better color.

As vendors, we walk a really difficult line, and credibility trumps all. For that reason, I believe we do a greater service to our customers in educating them about all the flavors available and what each flavor''s benefit is instead of insisting that our vanilla tastes just like his vanilla (especially when it doesn''t). I''d rather explain about vanilla, chocolate, pistachio, and the 32 other flavors available, and I''d rather reinforce the truth......that the only person who''s *really* qualified to say what flavor the buyer will like best is the buyer.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:50:17 PM
Author: Wink

For sure what none of them can do is force a new definition of H&A nor do I believe it is right to try. Yes, that is the easier path, but I do not believe that calling a duck a H&A is going to work, especially when those who cut the traditional patterns are going to keep calling it a duck. Jon can call that pattern H&A until the cows come home, and to little avail as others will denigrate it. Or he can work with others like Paul who believe that the old terminology needs to undergo an evolution and be part of the path to enlightenment. (pun intended)

I most emphatically agree with this comment....calling a duck an H&A isn''t going to work.

Instead, the savvy thing is to introduce something highlighted for its most notable strengths and emphasize those. It''s been done before.

The princess cut stone was never going to be a round, and it wasn''t ever going to return light as precisely as a round. Trying to insist that a princess is just as good as a round would be an exercise in futility; arguing that they are *different* and educating about the merits of the princess cut was a much more prudent course.

So, too, is it with patterning. Instead of arguing that these are H&As, present these stones on their top merits and distinguish those to buyers who would find those merits appealing.

 

[strmrdr]

Interesting....
Lets look at some facts...
For some angle combinations clefty hearts is the best for that combo.
I can and have proven that.

Lets look at some opinions:
this and that isn't h&a.

I think I will take facts over opinions.

 

[strmrdr]

lets add some more facts.
An awesome oec like H&A RB can have hearts that look like this:
How is that a fail?

 

[strmrdr]

and to repeat facts already entered and add one.
An awesome H&A FIC or an awesome H&A bic can and more than likely should have hearts like this.
How is that a fail?

 

[strmrdr]

My bottom line opinion based on facts: judging alignment(optical symmetry aka hearts) and downgrading or upgrading a diamonds alignment score based on lgf% is wrong and is bad for consumers.