"True Hearts"... really?

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 3/9/2010 12:38:37 PM
Author: sarap333

Date: 3/9/2010 12:21:14 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 3/9/2010 12:02:55 PM

Author: sarap333

I agree with CCL that the rules for 'perfect hearts' have been clearly spelled out in the Brian Gavin document, but my question remains:


How much does perfect patterning (in this case perfect hearts patterning) affect performance?

(edited for space constraints)

Much more skill and time is needed to get the perfect hearts than to get perfect arrows or to get the pavillion and crown angles to be complimentary. If a cutter is willing to take the time(and rough loss) to get perfect optical symmetry they are also highly likely to take the time to produce a near tolk ideal as well. On Pricescope we love to point out the exception the rare case where this is possible even if only theoretical. If a vendor is providing an ideal hearts and arrows image(by Brian's criteria) it is more than likely they rest of the proportions are near ideal as well.

I know this is commonly stated on PS. I'm not sure if it's true or if it's PS accumulated wisdom. I honestly don't know. And I don't know if 'more than likely' is the standard I want used in judging the cut quality of a stone.

I agree with all of the above, but when I personally mention to consumers the fact that H&A is not synonymous with cut perfection I do so to ensure that consumers know that they do not need to buy an H&A to have a well cut stone. It costs more to buy and H&A and for some consumers, perhaps most consumers, that level of perfection is not required to be happy with their diamond's performance. So while it is true that we could add H&A to our list of rejection criteria -- like cut grade, H&A score, and IS images -- because it would increase the liklihood that the consumer will be picking a winning diamonds, I think it is a very strict rule to adopt and one that costs a pretty penny too.

Anyways, because of this I will keep pointing out he disconnect between H&A and optical performance, not so much because of those rare (maybe impossible) cases where a stone is an H&A and a probable poor performer, but because of those common cases where the diamond is a non-H&A and a probable great performer.

 

[Lula]

Date: 3/12/2010 1:14:37 AM
Author: Regular Guy
About,


I think if you read any of Sara''s posts here, she''s cautioning you.


But...what I didn''t say here, but what you can look for...is what they use to call WSYWIG.


My experience is that with JA, whenever he presents ''TrueHearts,'' he also presents an IS. Most folks who like to consider the HCA, regard the test of an IS only an improvement on what HCA tells you any way.


So, judge with HCA, and double check that test with the IS view that Jim presents along with his TrueHearts view.


What Storm/Karl sometimes says about JA is that their photos are good. Frankly, their product may not be as reliably good as some other ''truly branded'' options, but it is likely that you can see much of what you get, before you get it.


I''ll bet Jim would be satisfied to say as much about his product, and be respected for doing that, as well.

Yes, About2Ask, Regular Guy (Ira) is correct that I am cautioning you to make sure you are getting what you pay for -- if what you want is a perfect H&A pattern, and you are willing to pay the premium for that, it''s important to look into what that means (the clefts in the hearts, etc.) and what the brand''s, in this case, TrueHearts (tm), standards are. Essentially, what are you paying for and is it important to you to pay for that particular level of cut precision.

And, yes, Dreamer is correct, it is possible to find beautiful diamonds that do not meet the very strict criteria laid out in the documents referrenced above on H&A symmetry.

Buying online gives you a lot of choice -- but it also puts more responsibility on you as a consumer to sort through all the options and decide which ones you want to pay for, and which ones are not important to you because you will never notice them in real life.

I am a customer of Crafted by Infinity Diamonds -- a branded diamond -- sold through several vendors who participate on PS (Wink is my vendor). I chose to pay the brand premium because Paul Slegers (the owner/cutter) makes it very clear what his brand offers and he stands behind the brand. So I know exactly what I''m getting for my money. That''s important to me; it may not be important to you.

The nice thing about PS is there are many people here who will help you sort through the details and assist you in making the decision that best fits your needs. There are many roads to a beautiful diamond on PS!

 

[Regular Guy]

Two things...

Reviewing your first post here:

Date: 3/8/2010 7:08:07 PM
Author:About2ask
I was looking at this diamond and the Idealscope looks great, however, the Hearts image looks a little off. Is this really considered ''True Hearts''? Of course I''m not judging the quality of JA, just a concern with a single diamond.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1287665.asp

I''m reminded that you already know you like the IS. So, to clarify again, although your recent question concerned the HCA, there''s general agreement that a good IS wins on rock/paper/scissors over the HCA.

But, also, recent threads also note that these tools only go so far. Paul has been visible on many of these recent threads.

And, I was motivated to think about the meaning of the difference between a "standard deviation" of significance.

But, everything''s been said, sometimes already (especially if it''s me). I searched for text I''d written before where I used that "turn of phrase," and see I used it when discussing my own purchase from JA, then called Dirt Cheap Diamonds, and 5 years ago, here. You might find it useful.

Regards,