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

[John P]

Date: 7/18/2008 7:51:07 PM
Author: John Pollard

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.

Hey Strm, you never answered my question.

Also, I think you''re confusing "optical symmetry" with "hearts." Optical symmetry can be judged in any stone, round or otherwise, by evaluating the consistency of the patterning. We do it for our princess cuts, and certainly don''t call the precision patterning "hearts."

Whether a round shows "hearts" depends on the parameters. This is not good or bad, it just is. Only B, below, fits the traditional standards for patterns seen in the original Japanese H&A stones.

 

[John P]

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

...The consumer gets that.. THEY FAIL.

Ok... So? Your stones don’t show traditional hearts patterns. So what?

Are you angry that your emerald and princess cuts fail to show hearts? Are you angry that your Solasfera or Eighternity rounds fail? Of course not. So why worry if you designed parameters for a round you like and it’s not a traditional hearts pattern? No big deal. I visit a lot of B&M retailers and some stock diamonds with patterning like your examples. They don’t try to sell them as H&A, they promote the diamond’s positive attributes.

A simple question for you:

Is creating heart shapes your goal, or is acquiring certain visual properties your goal?

…If creating hearts shapes is your goal you are not succeeding.
…If acquiring visual properties by cutting to XYZ parameters is your goal it sounds like you are succeeding. Why worry if the parameters you’ve requested fail to show “true” hearts by traditional standards? Why are you trying to judge them that way? The tutorial applies to stones intentionally cut to show Hearts & Arrows.

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

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.

I disagree, Rhino. The tutorial is a long-standing work about traditional “hearts & arrows” diamonds. It makes no performance judgments about other well-cut stones like yours. It also has precedence as a long-standing published work with peer-review and acclamation. The author is an undisputed authority, consulted on the H&A subject by major labs (some of which don’t even grade cut precision…yet) and he is an advisor to H&A manufacturers on three continents. Additionally, the tutorial is not Pricescope-specific; it’s published and in-use by small labs and appraisers in the US and abroad. I consider it a detailed and accurate reporting on the subject. To say “what a load of #$%&*…” seems disrespectful to the years of work, precedence and acceptance that this work has commanded - and I’m confident that was not what you intended.

Attacking a landmark paper may not get you much traction. I’d suggest focusing on what your new diamonds “are” - rather than what they are not. That could be productive and enjoyable. You have a gift for putting energy into new things, whether it’s a new techie device, a new brand you carry, etc. Use that skill to your advantage.

...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.

...

Sounds like a cool project, but will you be angry if those parameters also create patterns outside traditional “H&A” definition? … … See what I mean?

If you free yourself from this worry I think you’ll be much more at peace with the world.

In fact (wild speculation) I wonder if it is possible you have crossed over from H&A advocate to H&A critic? Ok. Maybe it’s not so drastic but you’ve had conversions in the past when you find new things, and if so that’s fine. I can speak only for myself…I remain zealously, passionately, feverishly in love with a specific personal set of proportions in round brilliant, but I love and appreciate precision-cutting & beautiful light return in any diamond; round or otherwise. In fact, I’ve had a conversion over the past few years as I have learned to love princess cuts (cut specifically for light performance). Your passion for your new cut is to be expected, but my advice is to love it for what it is. It’s not productive to try and rewrite history…instead move forward and write the future.

And meanwhile, move on out to your vacation and get you a Rhino-tan.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/20/2008 1:06:32 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/18/2008 7:51:07 PM

Author: John Pollard

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.

Hey Strm, you never answered my question.

It is a performance issue when a cutter or designer has a choice of h&a label or the proper lgf% for the combination under consideration.
A whole lot of them are going to make the wrong decision especially when a competitor is going to use that's not true h&a to make sales.
So the end result is a bunch of poor performing stones on the market and limited consumer choice.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/20/2008 1:06:32 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/18/2008 7:51:07 PM

Author: John Pollard

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

Also, I think you're confusing 'optical symmetry' with 'hearts.'

How long has hearts been pushed as the measurement of optical symmetry around here?
As long as I have been here and likely well before.

 

[risingsun]

When I was looking for my diamond, I was strongly considering a Hearts On Fire. I consulted with a respected appraiser and was given enough information to justify making this choice. The drawback was the price. I also consulted, at length, with Sir John and his colleagues at WF about an ACA. I also checked back with the same appraiser. I became convinced that the ACA was a outstanding stone--comparable to HOF-- that had the H&A pattern and ideal optical symmetry. I am aware the all H&A stones are not created the same. As a consumer, I need to base my decisions on some accessible, consistent parameters. If H&A is not longer a relevant term, then I want to know why I was told that it mattered and I paid a premium for my stone. If I discover that I have been misinformed, my trust in this process is gone. Rhino's diamonds are not all true H&A's and I'm sure they are beautiful, but I don't want to hear that they are superior to ACA's without evidence to back up that assertion. It's difficult enough to be a customer making the leap to buy on the internet, IMO. I don't want to be "played with" because the vendors are having a "my diamond is better than your diamond" contest. Before you start changing the rules, think of the people that have trusted you and bought your best diamonds. Be prepared for some very tough questions. I do possess the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and I am prepared to use it

 

[honey22]

Wooahhh!!! Phew, not that I have got your attention experts, what does this mean for simple folk such as myself who got lost around 1 page ago?!

I quite often suggest stones for others on here and I have no hesitation to suggest an ACA (own experience) or GOG H&A stones (due to their rep around here for being great). In my limited experience and I would say the general consensus around here (non-expert members) is that if you pick an ACA or GOG H&A stone, they will be of equal fabulous quality and the average person couldn't tell the difference between the two.

Can you please dumb it down for me and explain the differences between these two lines, and if you are going to actually be able to see the difference with the naked eye. I think that's what the average person is going to want to know, as I am sure I am not the only who got lost several posts ago.

Thanks again!!

 

[John P]

Date: 7/20/2008 1:28:09 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/20/2008 1:06:32 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/18/2008 7:51:07 PM

Author: John Pollard

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.

Hey Strm, you never answered my question.

It is a performance issue when a cutter or designer has a choice of h&a label or the proper lgf% for the combination under consideration.
A whole lot of them are going to make the wrong decision especially when a competitor is going to use that's not true h&a to make sales.
So the end result is a bunch of poor performing stones on the market and limited consumer choice.

That's a strange assertion Strm. First, over 80% of diamonds produced are average-to-poor performers in my book to begin with. Fewer than 1% of rounds are cut with the highest level of optical symmetry (some marketed as H&A, some not) so the number of "superideals" that might be influenced like you're saying is fractional, and I don't see it happening in any event.

You still didn't answer my question, by the way: I asked where it was said that a clefty heart creates a performance issue?

 

[Allison D.]

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

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.

Jon, I'm still missing what the beef is?

Are you suggesting that stones that fail to earn 'true' H&A designation are somehow unsaleable or less desireable because they are 'failures"? If so, I'd dispute that with two words.....

Expert Selection.

A few years ago, Whiteflash added a new offering to their lineup called Expert Selection. The intent of the line was (and still is) to offer 'value for the money', but in those days, the ES inventory largely consisted of stones which 'just missed' the H&A designation....in other words (your words), the failures.

I know you'll recall that the inventory in those initial few years of Expert Selection were extremely robust....10 or 15 times more volume than it is today, and yet those stones moved like CRAZY. It's worth noting that the Pricescope Hearts & Arrows tutorial existed (largely as it does now) even in those days, and yet the tutorial in no way diminished the incredible demand for those "failures". Why? Because the brass at Whiteflash are *smart cookies* when it comes to understanding how to accentuate the positive benefits, and they did just that.

They didn't try to justify why ES stones should be considered "true hearts"; instead, they readily said, 'yep, these aren't true hearts, BUT the overwhelming majority of them perform just as well in light performance and they don't carry the premium that H&A does'. In other words, the message was "these aren't H&A stones; they are incredible performing stones at an incredible value".

They were smart enough to realize that different buyers have different priorities, and they created a way to satisfy many market segments.

No one should have trouble moving beautiful stones akin to the one posted by the OP, and if that is happening, I don't believe it's because the PS H&A tutorial is hindering them. It would more likely be a need for improved marketing efforts.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 7/20/2008 2:11:00 AM
Author: honey22
Wooahhh!!! Phew, not that I have got your attention experts, what does this mean for simple folk such as myself who got lost around 1 page ago?!

I quite often suggest stones for others on here and I have no hesitation to suggest an ACA (own experience) or GOG H&A stones (due to their rep around here for being great). In my limited experience and I would say the general consensus around here (non-expert members) is that if you pick an ACA or GOG H&A stone, they will be of equal fabulous quality and the average person couldn't tell the difference between the two.

Can you please dumb it down for me and explain the differences between these two lines, and if you are going to actually be able to see the difference with the naked eye. I think that's what the average person is going to want to know, as I am sure I am not the only who got lost several posts ago.

Thanks again!!

I second this.
and I will hazard a guess that I'm not the only one who read this, then ran off to see if my recently purchased diamond has clefts in the hearts image..!
I appreciate that this is a technical conversation between those in the trade, but does one of you care to sum it up for the other 99% reading along who are lesser informed consumers?
Thankyou!

Oh, and I sincerely look forward to Rhino's responses when he returns from vacation. Should be very educational.

 

[rcrosier]

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...

You "experts" are right. I am not an expert, but merely a chemical engineer. I am not educated about diamonds. Therefore, the ridicule offered to me is deserved. That being said, my original posting was ment to be taken in proper context, that being an opinion coming from a consumer. In my opinion -- the consumer -- the images didn''t look like what I refer to as a "heart", but more like a "V". If I was buying a diamond purely for the presence of hearts in its optical symmetry, I would say that there are more "heartlike" stones to buy. I also mention that "I''m sure the stone is cut very well", concedeing to the fact that GoG has an amazing reputation within PS of selling diamonds with exceptional light performace. I also know that GoG has diamonds within their inventory with what I consider to be better "hearts" than those portrayed by the diamond that is referenced by the OP.

Rhino -- With sincerety, the last thing I wanted to do was to offend anyone''s knowledge/expertise on the subject at hand. I am not an expert, so I don''t have the right to pass judgement from an experts point of view, only that of a consumer. As a consumer, I merely ment that when ---> I
Respectfully,

 

[arjunajane]

It''s a shame the OP hasn''t returned to supply an un-distorted hearts image or, better, a link to the stone that Rcroiser is referencing.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/20/2008 2:24:14 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/20/2008 1:28:09 AM



You still didn''t answer my question, by the way: I asked where it was said that a clefty heart creates a performance issue?

Yes I did, in several cases cutting for no clefts is a performance issue.
That is where it becomes an issue.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/20/2008 2:34:05 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 7/20/2008 2:11:00 AM

Author: honey22

Wooahhh!!! Phew, not that I have got your attention experts, what does this mean for simple folk such as myself who got lost around 1 page ago?!

I quite often suggest stones for others on here and I have no hesitation to suggest an ACA (own experience) or GOG H&A stones (due to their rep around here for being great). In my limited experience and I would say the general consensus around here (non-expert members) is that if you pick an ACA or GOG H&A stone, they will be of equal fabulous quality and the average person couldn''t tell the difference between the two.


Can you please dumb it down for me and explain the differences between these two lines, and if you are going to actually be able to see the difference with the naked eye. I think that''s what the average person is going to want to know, as I am sure I am not the only who got lost several posts ago.


Thanks again!!

I second this.

and I will hazard a guess that I''m not the only one who read this, then ran off to see if my recently purchased diamond has clefts in the hearts image..!

I appreciate that this is a technical conversation between those in the trade, but does one of you care to sum it up for the other 99% reading along who are lesser informed consumers?

Thankyou!


Oh, and I sincerely look forward to Rhino''s responses when he returns from vacation. Should be very educational.

What is boils down to is are over 80% lgf% bad? Do they Fail?
Which is the cut off for Brian''s personal opinion of "true" h&a in the PS tutorial.

Now for some facts:
In some combinations the best lgf% is over 80% and in others its a personal preference issue of smaller vs larger flashes and in some combos under 80% is better and in some cases people may have a preference for lower lgf% than Brian''s "true" h&a allows.



Saying some lgf% fails or is bad because it adds a cleft to a heart is like saying all diamonds with 35 degree crowns are bad without taking the rest of the diamond into account.

It comes down to h&a yes/no is opinion not fact and in some cases an opinion gets in the way of a fact.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/20/2008 2:11:00 AM
Author: honey22
Wooahhh!!! Phew, not that I have got your attention experts, what does this mean for simple folk such as myself who got lost around 1 page ago?!

I quite often suggest stones for others on here and I have no hesitation to suggest an ACA (own experience) or GOG H&A stones (due to their rep around here for being great). In my limited experience and I would say the general consensus around here (non-expert members) is that if you pick an ACA or GOG H&A stone, they will be of equal fabulous quality and the average person couldn't tell the difference between the two.

Can you please dumb it down for me and explain the differences between these two lines, and if you are going to actually be able to see the difference with the naked eye. I think that's what the average person is going to want to know, as I am sure I am not the only who got lost several posts ago.

Thanks again!!

I'll give it a shot honey, although this seems to be headed into that zone where everyone is just saying the same thing over and over.

1. The Pricescope H&A tutorial shows the method of creating traditional hearts & arrows patterns as they originated in Japan.
2. The original poster asked if the GOG diamond has true hearts according to the tutorial.
3. Wink explained, correctly, that it does not - and also explained that this is no problem - it's a beautiful stone anyway.

Two subjects have become tangled since then... (1) Taste & performance - which have nothing to do with the tutorial's instructions on how to create heart patterns. (2) The fact that many beautiful diamonds don't necessarily show "hearts" meeting the traditional definitions, and that is just fine.

Simply put: The Pricescope "Hearts & Arrows" tutorial is about patterning a round diamond to show "hearts" and "arrows." It makes no judgments about performance...so those discussion seem misplaced here, to me. Many beautiful diamonds exist that show something other than hearts in their patterning, whether round, square or other. Cool.

Strm & Rhino may be able to better-explain their complaints, but for the last two pages I feel they have been discussing performance judgments, which the H&A tutorial is not making...it's just showing people what a traditional H&A diamond looks like.


Edited to add: I thought of this comparison: Let’s say Rhino introduces a wonderful goose. It’s a rocking goose and people love it... However, there is not going to be an image of it in the Pricescope duck gallery since it's not a duck. It's a goose. It may perform every bit as well as a duck. Some people might even have a taste for goose over duck, but by long-standing definitions it is not a duck. It's a goose.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/20/2008 2:01:52 AM
Author: risingsun
When I was looking for my diamond, I was strongly considering a Hearts On Fire. I consulted with a respected appraiser and was given enough information to justify making this choice. The drawback was the price. I also consulted, at length, with Sir John and his colleagues at WF about an ACA. I also checked back with the same appraiser. I became convinced that the ACA was a outstanding stone--comparable to HOF-- that had the H&A pattern and ideal optical symmetry. I am aware the all H&A stones are not created the same. As a consumer, I need to base my decisions on some accessible, consistent parameters. If H&A is not longer a relevant term, then I want to know why I was told that it mattered and I paid a premium for my stone. If I discover that I have been misinformed, my trust in this process is gone. Rhino's diamonds are not all true H&A's and I'm sure they are beautiful, but I don't want to hear that they are superior to ACA's without evidence to back up that assertion. It's difficult enough to be a customer making the leap to buy on the internet, IMO. I don't want to be 'played with' because the vendors are having a 'my diamond is better than your diamond' contest. Before you start changing the rules, think of the people that have trusted you and bought your best diamonds. Be prepared for some very tough questions. I do possess the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and I am prepared to use it

Marian, I agree with you that it's sad/disappointing that anyone could believe that the point of this thread boils down to a contest about 'my diamond is better than yours'. For my part, I can assure you that's not my approach to this thread, nor is it that of Whiteflash.

This thread isn't about (and shouldn't be construed to be about) whose diamonds are better because here's the bald reality: Every one of us offers some stones that are considered true H&As (according to the metrics outlined in the Pricescope tutorial and widely accepted by acclaimed/noted leaders in the industry), and every one of us also offers some stones that aren't considered true H&A.

The notions that the H&A tutorial on Pricescope does a disservice to consumers or is materially responsible for diminishing demand or desirability of top-performing stones that aren't true H&A is hogwash. H&A diamonds existed in the marketplace long before Pricescope published the H&A tutorial, and any consumer can be easily introduced to the notion of 'perfect hearts and arrows' at whichever local jeweler carries Hearts on Fire.

Instead of blaming customer perceptions on high standard and deeming the standards unreasonable, we should be educating them on all the exciting options available to them and letting them decide which are important to them....just as you did.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/20/2008 3:05:33 AM
Author: strmrdr

What is boils down to is are over 80% lgf% bad? Do they Fail?

They are not "bad" they just won't result in a traditional hearts pattern. Fact.
And it's not just about lower halves. The tutorial gives parameters for many different aspects that must come together to create that specific look in a diamond's patterning.

Which is the cut off for Brian's personal opinion of 'true' h&a in the PS tutorial.

Come on Strmy. This is not true. The parameters were in place long before Brian documented them, in Japan. Look at CGL. Look at Zenhokyo. Do you have the "hantei" document? Same cutoff. Look at HRD's definitions from this year. Same cutoff. Look at Hearts On Fire's stones. Same cutoff. Look at Blue Nile's H&A tutorial. Same cutoff. Facts.

Date: 7/20/2008 3:05:33 AM
Author: strmrdr

Now for some facts:
In some combinations the best lgf% is over 80% and in others its a personal preference issue of smaller vs larger flashes and in some combos under 80% is better and in some cases people may have a preference for lower lgf% than Brian's 'true' h&a allows.

Saying some lgf% fails or is bad because it adds a cleft to a heart is like saying all diamonds with 35 degree crowns are bad without taking the rest of the diamond into account.

It comes down to h&a yes/no is opinion not fact and in some cases an opinion gets in the way of a fact.

Arg. You're mired down in performance topics again. None of the above is being debated in the tutorial. The tutorial simply outlines what a traditional heart looks like.

Another comparison: If you buy a book titled "How To Make Lemon Pie" it might not include apple pie, but it's not saying apple pie is bad just because it's excluded.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/20/2008 3:33:55 AM
Author: John Pollard


Arg. You''re mired down in performance topics again. None of the above is being debated in the tutorial. The tutorial simply outlines what a traditional heart looks like.

That''s my point whether you call it traditional or true from a performance perspective it is as outdated as saying only a CA between 34 and 35 makes a good diamond.
If it makes no difference in performance or even in some cases hurts performance(cut "true" on a combo that needs longer lgf%) then why should someone pay extra for it?
They shouldn''t.
There for that definition is not the correct one.
Saying its hearts just for the sake of having hearts then maybe I would agree with you a little more. But hearts for the sake of hearts should not bring a premium.

 

[strmrdr]

I wouldn''t have a problem with the concept of "true" hearts if it was presented as a subset of optically symmetrical diamonds but as presented where what may be the best performer for a given combination is given a FAIL grade I don''t agree with.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/20/2008 3:58:24 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/20/2008 3:33:55 AM
Author: John Pollard


Arg. You're mired down in performance topics again. None of the above is being debated in the tutorial. The tutorial simply outlines what a traditional heart looks like.

That's my point whether you call it traditional or true from a performance perspective it is as outdated as saying only a CA between 34 and 35 makes a good diamond.
If it makes no difference in performance or even in some cases hurts performance(cut 'true' on a combo that needs longer lgf%) then why should someone pay extra for it?
They shouldn't.
There for that definition is not the correct one.
Saying its hearts just for the sake of having hearts then maybe I would agree with you a little more. But hearts for the sake of hearts should not bring a premium.

I get where you're coming from better on this point. Nevertheless, "Hearts & Arrows" is a traditional class of stone which is still valued and sought by enthusiasts; sometimes specifically for tradition and history.

I respect your view but I'd counter that identifying diamonds fitting the traditional H&A template is no more outdated than identifying IF, VVS and VS over SI clarity... If you're going to fight the "no difference in performance for more $$$" fight you might tackle that subject first, since it has faaar more ramifications than the niche area we're spending our wee hours on tonight. Good luck on that one.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 7/20/2008 3:16:07 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/20/2008 2:11:00 AM
Author: honey22
Wooahhh!!! Phew, not that I have got your attention experts, what does this mean for simple folk such as myself who got lost around 1 page ago?!

I quite often suggest stones for others on here and I have no hesitation to suggest an ACA (own experience) or GOG H&A stones (due to their rep around here for being great). In my limited experience and I would say the general consensus around here (non-expert members) is that if you pick an ACA or GOG H&A stone, they will be of equal fabulous quality and the average person couldn''t tell the difference between the two.

Can you please dumb it down for me and explain the differences between these two lines, and if you are going to actually be able to see the difference with the naked eye. I think that''s what the average person is going to want to know, as I am sure I am not the only who got lost several posts ago.

Thanks again!!

I''ll give it a shot honey, although this seems to be headed into that zone where everyone is just saying the same thing over and over.

1. The Pricescope H&A tutorial shows the method of creating traditional hearts & arrows patterns as they originated in Japan.
2. The original poster asked if the GOG diamond has true hearts according to the tutorial.
3. Wink explained, correctly, that it does not - and also explained that this is no problem - it''s a beautiful stone anyway.

Two subjects have become tangled since then... (1) Taste & performance - which have nothing to do with the tutorial''s instructions on how to create heart patterns. (2) The fact that many beautiful diamonds don''t necessarily show ''hearts'' meeting the traditional definitions, and that is just fine.

Simply put: The Pricescope ''Hearts & Arrows'' tutorial is about patterning a round diamond to show ''hearts'' and ''arrows.'' It makes no judgments about performance...so those discussion seem misplaced here, to me. Many beautiful diamonds exist that show something other than hearts in their patterning, whether round, square or other. Cool.

Strm & Rhino may be able to better-explain their complaints, but for the last two pages I feel they have been discussing performance judgments, which the H&A tutorial is not making...it''s just showing people what a traditional H&A diamond looks like.


Edited to add: I thought of this comparison: Let’s say Rhino introduces a wonderful goose. It’s a rocking goose and people love it... However, there is not going to be an image of it in the Pricescope duck gallery since it''s not a duck. It''s a goose. It may perform every bit as well as a duck. Some people might even have a taste for goose over duck, but by long-standing definitions it is not a duck. It''s a goose.

John, thankyou for attempting to clarify, its greatly appreciated.
I understand where you are coming from - you are addressing the issue at its core - is it or not a true H&A pattern. ?
But, I can see where others (specifically Rhino) are coming from - for a layman consumer, unable to separate the stick in the mud of a "true" H&A pattern from an equally beautiful stone with "clefts", the PS tutorial may be a tiny bit misleading. Factually Correct, respectfully, but for people who are not informed enough to take its content and combine with other diamond-selecting knowledge about performance.... - well, as you said this is essentially a different discussion.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 7/20/2008 3:05:33 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/20/2008 2:34:05 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 7/20/2008 2:11:00 AM

Author: honey22

Wooahhh!!! Phew, not that I have got your attention experts, what does this mean for simple folk such as myself who got lost around 1 page ago?!

I quite often suggest stones for others on here and I have no hesitation to suggest an ACA (own experience) or GOG H&A stones (due to their rep around here for being great). In my limited experience and I would say the general consensus around here (non-expert members) is that if you pick an ACA or GOG H&A stone, they will be of equal fabulous quality and the average person couldn't tell the difference between the two.


Can you please dumb it down for me and explain the differences between these two lines, and if you are going to actually be able to see the difference with the naked eye. I think that's what the average person is going to want to know, as I am sure I am not the only who got lost several posts ago.


Thanks again!!

I second this.

and I will hazard a guess that I'm not the only one who read this, then ran off to see if my recently purchased diamond has clefts in the hearts image..!

I appreciate that this is a technical conversation between those in the trade, but does one of you care to sum it up for the other 99% reading along who are lesser informed consumers?

Thankyou!


Oh, and I sincerely look forward to Rhino's responses when he returns from vacation. Should be very educational.

What is boils down to is are over 80% lgf% bad? Do they Fail?
Which is the cut off for Brian's personal opinion of 'true' h&a in the PS tutorial.

Now for some facts:
In some combinations the best lgf% is over 80% and in others its a personal preference issue of smaller vs larger flashes and in some combos under 80% is better and in some cases people may have a preference for lower lgf% than Brian's 'true' h&a allows.



Saying some lgf% fails or is bad because it adds a cleft to a heart is like saying all diamonds with 35 degree crowns are bad without taking the rest of the diamond into account.

It comes down to h&a yes/no is opinion not fact and in some cases an opinion gets in the way of a fact.

And thankyou Strm for attempting to explain further.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 7/20/2008 3:26:35 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 7/20/2008 2:01:52 AM
Author: risingsun
When I was looking for my diamond, I was strongly considering a Hearts On Fire. I consulted with a respected appraiser and was given enough information to justify making this choice. The drawback was the price. I also consulted, at length, with Sir John and his colleagues at WF about an ACA. I also checked back with the same appraiser. I became convinced that the ACA was a outstanding stone--comparable to HOF-- that had the H&A pattern and ideal optical symmetry. I am aware the all H&A stones are not created the same. As a consumer, I need to base my decisions on some accessible, consistent parameters. If H&A is not longer a relevant term, then I want to know why I was told that it mattered and I paid a premium for my stone. If I discover that I have been misinformed, my trust in this process is gone. Rhino's diamonds are not all true H&A's and I'm sure they are beautiful, but I don't want to hear that they are superior to ACA's without evidence to back up that assertion. It's difficult enough to be a customer making the leap to buy on the internet, IMO. I don't want to be 'played with' because the vendors are having a 'my diamond is better than your diamond' contest. Before you start changing the rules, think of the people that have trusted you and bought your best diamonds. Be prepared for some very tough questions. I do possess the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and I am prepared to use it

Marian, I agree with you that it's sad/disappointing that anyone could believe that the point of this thread boils down to a contest about 'my diamond is better than yours'. For my part, I can assure you that's not my approach to this thread, nor is it that of Whiteflash.

This thread isn't about (and shouldn't be construed to be about) whose diamonds are better because here's the bald reality: Every one of us offers some stones that are considered true H&As (according to the metrics outlined in the Pricescope tutorial and widely accepted by acclaimed/noted leaders in the industry), and every one of us also offers some stones that aren't considered true H&A.

The notions that the H&A tutorial on Pricescope does a disservice to consumers or is materially responsible for diminishing demand or desirability of top-performing stones that aren't true H&A is hogwash. H&A diamonds existed in the marketplace long before Pricescope published the H&A tutorial, and any consumer can be easily introduced to the notion of 'perfect hearts and arrows' at whichever local jeweler carries Hearts on Fire.

Instead of blaming customer perceptions on high standard and deeming the standards unreasonable, we should be educating them on all the exciting options available to them and letting them decide which are important to them....just as you did.

Allison, and with 110% due respect I say this - perhaps we should allow Jonathan to return from vacation, catch up on this thread, and clarify his posts before extrapolating any further on what he may or may not have meant earlier?
He is a big boy and certainly doesn't need me to defend, but I simply don't like seeing someone's posts referenced when they have announced they will not be around to conribute..
just mho, peace.

 

[honey22]

Date: 7/20/2008 3:33:55 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/20/2008 3:05:33 AM
Author: strmrdr

What is boils down to is are over 80% lgf% bad? Do they Fail?

They are not ''bad'' they just won''t result in a traditional hearts pattern. Fact.
And it''s not just about lower halves. The tutorial gives parameters for many different aspects that must come together to create that specific look in a diamond''s patterning.

Which is the cut off for Brian''s personal opinion of ''true'' h&a in the PS tutorial.

Come on Strmy. This is not true. The parameters were in place long before Brian documented them, in Japan. Look at CGL. Look at Zenhokyo. Do you have the ''hantei'' document? Same cutoff. Look at HRD''s definitions from this year. Same cutoff. Look at Hearts On Fire''s stones. Same cutoff. Look at Blue Nile''s H&A tutorial. Same cutoff. Facts.

Date: 7/20/2008 3:05:33 AM
Author: strmrdr

Now for some facts:
In some combinations the best lgf% is over 80% and in others its a personal preference issue of smaller vs larger flashes and in some combos under 80% is better and in some cases people may have a preference for lower lgf% than Brian''s ''true'' h&a allows.

Saying some lgf% fails or is bad because it adds a cleft to a heart is like saying all diamonds with 35 degree crowns are bad without taking the rest of the diamond into account.

It comes down to h&a yes/no is opinion not fact and in some cases an opinion gets in the way of a fact.

Arg. You''re mired down in performance topics again. None of the above is being debated in the tutorial. The tutorial simply outlines what a traditional heart looks like.

Another comparison: If you buy a book titled ''How To Make Lemon Pie'' it might not include apple pie, but it''s not saying apple pie is bad just because it''s excluded.

PIE! Did someone say pie! What a great idea

Thanks for the explanations guys!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/20/2008 3:16:07 AM
Author: John Pollard

Edited to add: I thought of this comparison: Let’s say Rhino introduces a wonderful goose. It’s a rocking goose and people love it... However, there is not going to be an image of it in the Pricescope duck gallery since it''s not a duck. It''s a goose. It may perform every bit as well as a duck. Some people might even have a taste for goose over duck, but by long-standing definitions it is not a duck. It''s a goose.

Possibly. But I have to ask, will the duck have an orange sauce??

 

[purrfectpear]

This is exactly why I recommend that people buy diamonds not paper. I realize that there is good in having parameters to judge when you''re buying online, but there are people who get so hung up on labels and 100% paper results that they honestly believe that a 99.9% stone is not as valuable

I agree that it''s about communication and education. PS posters have occasionally been guilty of touting H&A as being a better diamond than ideal cut non qualifying H&A. As a result those who buy paper are led to believe any non H&A diamond is not as well performing.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/20/2008 9:48:04 AM
Author: purrfectpear
This is exactly why I recommend that people buy diamonds not paper. I realize that there is good in having parameters to judge when you're buying online, but there are people who get so hung up on labels and 100% paper results that they honestly believe that a 99.9% stone is not as valuable

I agree that it's about communication and education. PS posters have occasionally been guilty of touting H&A as being a better diamond than ideal cut non qualifying H&A. As a result those who buy paper are led to believe any non H&A diamond is not as well performing.

I hope that isn't often the case, we try hard to find out what the poster is looking for and help them accordingly ,what IS better depends on what that particular poster values more. The regulars do a fantastic job in RT in trying to help out an extremely diverse group of diamond buyers, and also some posters need to know all about the numbers and what they mean, it matters to them as an important part of their purchase and package.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/20/2008 9:51:55 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 7/20/2008 9:48:04 AM
Author: purrfectpear
This is exactly why I recommend that people buy diamonds not paper. I realize that there is good in having parameters to judge when you're buying online, but there are people who get so hung up on labels and 100% paper results that they honestly believe that a 99.9% stone is not as valuable

I agree that it's about communication and education. PS posters have occasionally been guilty of touting H&A as being a better diamond than ideal cut non qualifying H&A. As a result those who buy paper are led to believe any non H&A diamond is not as well performing.

I hope that isn't often the case, we try hard to find out what the poster is looking for and help them accordingly ,what IS better depends on what that particular poster values more. The regulars do a fantastic job in RT in trying to help out an extremely diverse group of diamond buyers, and also some posters need to know all about the numbers and what they mean, it matters to them as an important part of their purchase and package.

Ditto.

And while it's great advice to "buy the diamond, not the paper", when one is buying sight unseen and can't choose with their eyes, that paper becomes much more important. If I'm helping a poster who has cut as a priority, and it's between an Ideal cut, and a H&A stone, I'd most likely recommend the H&A, because while they both may very well perform the same, we don't have the luxury of seeing/knowing that, therefore the H&A is a safer bet. (assuming everything else is as it should be on the stone)

 

[KtIceRN]

Date: 7/20/2008 9:48:04 AM
Author: purrfectpear
This is exactly why I recommend that people buy diamonds not paper. I realize that there is good in having parameters to judge when you''re buying online, but there are people who get so hung up on labels and 100% paper results that they honestly believe that a 99.9% stone is not as valuable

I agree that it''s about communication and education. PS posters have occasionally been guilty of touting H&A as being a better diamond than ideal cut non qualifying H&A. As a result those who buy paper are led to believe any non H&A diamond is not as well performing.

Then if the stone is not H&A why sell it as one? To portray it as a H&A stone when according to the data available it would not meet those criteria in my mind is what is not fair to consumers. Sell it for what it is not what you think people want to hear that it is. Marketing strategies are all around us and people know how to use them to get us to buy.

From my point of view as a consumer a stone should not be sold as a H&A if it does not meet the H&A standard that is held to be true to this date. It should be sold as a top performing stone. It should speak for itself and not require a label attached to it that is false. I don''t want to by a pair of jeans that are sold as X and, although they are some of the best jeans available, only to find out that they are not really X. I bought X cause that is what I wanted and what was important to me. I believe that is what this thread is really all about. . Alot of the folks that come here are looking for a top performing stone and that is what they get referred to when they ask for help in RT. They are not usually asking if the stone is true H&A as the OP did in this thread. They just want to get a great stone. The OP asked is this a true H&A? No it''s not. Pain and simple according to the data available to us consumers.

A H&A diamond is a H&A diamond. A non H&A diamond that is a great performing stone is a non H&A diamond that is a great performing stone. Neither is better than the other but they are different and I don''t think they should be interchanged. If I am going to pay a premium for a H&A stone then why would I want someone else whose stone is not a true H&A and paid less to be able to say hey mine is a H&A stone too. That takes away from all the consumers who paid extra for their true H&A stones. If anyone can claim that their stones are true H&A even respected PS vendors and they really are not then why do we even bother to have a tutorial that is used around the world?

Will most people be able to tell the difference between a true H&A and not true H&A IRL; I doubt it. That''s where the mind clean issue comes into play. Some people want a true H&A for their own reasons; others could care less about true H&A as long as the optical symmetry is there and the rock sparkles. It is what it is. You are buying a H&A diamond cause that is what you want, not something that comes close and can be misrepresented as such. It''s just like those stones that are graded by the labs and the inscription shows up on the grading reports as H&A. Says whom? The guy who sent it to the lab with the inscription instructions that’s who. Now get the hearts image and prove it. If it shows true hearts great. If not it is just another tactic to get a consumer to buy something that is not what the known standard says it should be.

 

[risingsun]

I completely agree with Ellen and KT. On the internet, we have to rely on the paper and the reputation of the vendor. As I understand it, true hearts and arrows indicate a precision of cutting that is done intentionally to produce a diamond of superior performance. It is more than a pattern of cutting. That when a cutter takes that much care with a diamond, the facets are perfectly aligned for optical symmetry. I attended a number of webinars on this site that provided this information. I think it is irresponsible to throw out accusations and "updated" terminology without considering the impact on the customers who have listened and learned.

 

[agc]

My two cents on the issue. Marketing forces (not on this forum) have sold the general public the line that H&A are the ultimate, best cut, best performing diamonds and anything less is second best. When the average consumer comes to this forum and reads a tutorial on H&A and sees that the the hearts with clefts "FAILS" many automatically assume that means less precision, less perfect and less beauty since it "FAILED". Most do not realize this is strictly a patterning issue and not a direct measure of performance. They do not understand that diamonds with longer lgf will have clefts and could actually be cut tighter and perform better than a true, traditional H&A and therefore are not "FAILURES" of quality or performance. It all comes down to perception of the word "FAIL". IMHO.