True Hearts - Technical discussion

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/9/2008 3:03:41 PM
Author: agc
Marty raises the issue of diamond size with respect to viewer being neglected in grading H&A's. Wink says it either is a true H&A or it is not with no in between. With this in mind is the 2 ct diamond in this link a true H&A or a non traditional modified H&A? LGF is < 80%

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3488/

1) This doesn't appear to be the same stone that started this whole thing, which I could easily see didn't cut the mustard as a classic H&A

2) I downloaded the Sarin file (since I counldn't find a Helium to import into diamondcalc) because i wanted a bigger picture and printout to take some rudimentary measuerments from, and imported it into DiamondCalc. Here is the comparison.


Sorry I originally made a composite with the default DIamondCalc This is NOT the correct composite IGNORE

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/9/2008 4:45:43 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/9/2008 4:18:43 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/9/2008 3:05:11 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/9/2008 2:58:12 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/9/2008 12:15:40 PM
Author: DiaGem





How about this: Is Classic H&A patterns out-dated??

Quite frankly DiaGem, that is the type of ''statement'' coming from the same type of people who are trying to destroy, for their own advantage or agenda, and intentionally mislead consumers, just like what happened with Rhino and painted halves, which is well documented. Why don''t you all sell junk like you want to, so you can boost your margins.

Marty..., please define junk....

DiaGem.. forgive me for getting P****d at the tenor, but it sounds to me that everyone (or some) want to loosen whatever (ill defined?) standards existed for years, and play like the GIA game, tailor everything to the mass merchandising mall shops merchandise and call ''everything'' an EX.

That is the impression I''ve been getting, and I''ve lost my cool a few times with it.

No need for apologies.
As I dont deal (cut or sell) with RB''s unless they are old and fair in polish or symmetry....

, The new precision round cuts are just not my thing! Although I constantly deal with extreme precision Diamonds at a much higher level..., but that another story for another day!

Standards have been in existent for years..., but (thank god) rules were made to be broken! Especially in such a primitive industry as the Diamond industry!

I just dont see nor understand the big WHO-HA...

I understand no one owns the H&A line/trademark (unless I dont understand correctly).
No one is disputing the great face up performance of either..., Classic or modified H&A''s
Why cant we be more open minded and accept change easier??

If its a great performer as you guys call them..., then why not accept a heart with a small incision??

Its not tailored to the mass..., but is limited from being marketed as a specialty cut!

Marty..., there are two sides to the same coin.

Since John Pollard is busy this weekend, let me take a stab at it in non diamond speak. Let''s speak in musicaleze.

I want to buy a Jazz record, I call Ye Great Musical Store and tell them I want to buy a Jazz record. They send me some Van Halen and tell me that it is just as high performance as traditional Jazz and that in fact they call it Jazz in their store, and hey, if you don''t like my Van Halen, how about some Mozart? It is just as high performance too and besides, they all use the same notes.

Now I notice that the notes sound "a little different" in the Ye Great Musical Store recording than the traditional Jazz I am used to and I go to the MusicScope site to ask if this is a true traditional Jazz recording or not. I get one response that if Ye Great Musical Store says it is Jazz that is good enough for me, I make one reply that I thought so too, but just wanted to ask, then I go away and never post again, and probably don''t even know that several hundred posts later the debate is still raging. Should this Van Halen Qualify as a true traditional Jazz recording or not. It has just as high performance, the decibles are incredible and it uses the same precise spacing between the notes. After all, if it ...

Well you get the picture.

Wink

 

[Serg]

Wink,

I Understood problem, there are not yet Lab which can grade what is TRUE Traditional Jazz .

If somebody will open such Lab your life will very easy, you can easy find and buy TRUE traditional Jazz.

and all other consumers will buy same records. But how will we receive new Jazz records after ? new true Jazz will not come more.
Hope best Jazz exist right now

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/9/2008 5:38:24 PM
Author: Serg

Wink,

I Understood problem, there are not yet Lab which can grade what is TRUE Traditional Jazz .

If somebody will open such Lab your life will very easy, you can easy find and buy TRUE traditional Jazz.

And So It Is!

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/9/2008 5:39:45 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/9/2008 5:38:24 PM
Author: Serg

Wink,

I Understood problem, there are not yet Lab which can grade what is TRUE Traditional Jazz .

If somebody will open such Lab your life will very easy, you can easy find and buy TRUE traditional Jazz.

And So It Is!

and all other consumers will buy same records.
But how will we receive new Jazz records after ? new true Jazz will not come more.
Hope best Jazz exist right now

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/9/2008 5:16:56 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/9/2008 3:03:41 PM
Author: agc
Marty raises the issue of diamond size with respect to viewer being neglected in grading H&A''s. Wink says it either is a true H&A or it is not with no in between. With this in mind is the 2 ct diamond in this link a true H&A or a non traditional modified H&A? LGF is < 80%

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3488/

1) This doesn''t appear to be the same stone that started this whole thing, which I could easily see didn''t cut the mustard as a classic H&A

2) I downloaded the Sarin file (since I counldn''t find a Helium to import into diamondcalc) because i wanted a bigger picture and printout to take some rudimentary measuerments from, and imported it into DiamondCalc. Here is the comparison.


Sorry I originally made a composite with the default DIamondCalc This is NOT the correct composite IGNORE

This is the correct composite..

I think it might be called marginal but not overly bad, two deep clefts and assymetric "V"s.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/9/2008 5:38:24 PM
Author: Serg

Wink,

I Understood problem, there are not yet Lab which can grade what is TRUE Traditional Jazz .

Sergey Do you think DC could grade TRUE jazz... (I know it is a lot of work)
I ask because what we have now is probably a lot of subjectivity which started this thread.

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/9/2008 5:20:29 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/9/2008 4:45:43 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/9/2008 4:18:43 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/9/2008 3:05:11 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/9/2008 2:58:12 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/9/2008 12:15:40 PM
Author: DiaGem






How about this: Is Classic H&A patterns out-dated??

Quite frankly DiaGem, that is the type of ''statement'' coming from the same type of people who are trying to destroy, for their own advantage or agenda, and intentionally mislead consumers, just like what happened with Rhino and painted halves, which is well documented. Why don''t you all sell junk like you want to, so you can boost your margins.

Marty..., please define junk....

DiaGem.. forgive me for getting P****d at the tenor, but it sounds to me that everyone (or some) want to loosen whatever (ill defined?) standards existed for years, and play like the GIA game, tailor everything to the mass merchandising mall shops merchandise and call ''everything'' an EX.

That is the impression I''ve been getting, and I''ve lost my cool a few times with it.

No need for apologies.
As I dont deal (cut or sell) with RB''s unless they are old and fair in polish or symmetry....

, The new precision round cuts are just not my thing! Although I constantly deal with extreme precision Diamonds at a much higher level..., but that another story for another day!

Standards have been in existent for years..., but (thank god) rules were made to be broken! Especially in such a primitive industry as the Diamond industry!

I just dont see nor understand the big WHO-HA...

I understand no one owns the H&A line/trademark (unless I dont understand correctly).
No one is disputing the great face up performance of either..., Classic or modified H&A''s
Why cant we be more open minded and accept change easier??

If its a great performer as you guys call them..., then why not accept a heart with a small incision??

Its not tailored to the mass..., but is limited from being marketed as a specialty cut!

Marty..., there are two sides to the same coin.

Since John Pollard is busy this weekend, let me take a stab at it in non diamond speak. Let''s speak in musicaleze.

I want to buy a Jazz record, I call Ye Great Musical Store and tell them I want to buy a Jazz record. They send me some Van Halen and tell me that it is just as high performance as traditional Jazz and that in fact they call it Jazz in their store, and hey, if you don''t like my Van Halen, how about some Mozart? It is just as high performance too and besides, they all use the same notes.

Now I notice that the notes sound ''a little different'' in the Ye Great Musical Store recording than the traditional Jazz I am used to and I go to the MusicScope site to ask if this is a true traditional Jazz recording or not. I get one response that if Ye Great Musical Store says it is Jazz that is good enough for me, I make one reply that I thought so too, but just wanted to ask, then I go away and never post again, and probably don''t even know that several hundred posts later the debate is still raging. Should this Van Halen Qualify as a true traditional Jazz recording or not. It has just as high performance, the decibles are incredible and it uses the same precise spacing between the notes. After all, if it ...

Well you get the picture.

Wink

Wink..., I think I said that before..., just too many pages to look through...
I can understand your comparison..., Its true..., Jazz and Van Halen are different..., but who knows..., maybe Van HAlen will surprise you one day

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/9/2008 5:47:36 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/9/2008 5:38:24 PM
Author: Serg

Wink,

I Understood problem, there are not yet Lab which can grade what is TRUE Traditional Jazz .

Sergey Do you think DC could grade TRUE jazz... (I know it is a lot of work)
I ask because what we have now is probably a lot of subjectivity which started this thread.

Marty,

A soon we will add optical symmetry score for our HP clients.( only for HP models)
We have not plan do any H&A grade, I do not like help to commoditization diamond market

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/9/2008 5:41:32 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/9/2008 5:39:45 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/9/2008 5:38:24 PM
Author: Serg

Wink,

I Understood problem, there are not yet Lab which can grade what is TRUE Traditional Jazz .

If somebody will open such Lab your life will very easy, you can easy find and buy TRUE traditional Jazz.

And So It Is!

and all other consumers will buy same records.
But how will we receive new Jazz records after ? new true Jazz will not come more.
Hope best Jazz exist right now

Serg.. Isn''t that the problem, who has perfect pitch and can recognize great jazz. ?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/9/2008 5:41:32 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/9/2008 5:39:45 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/9/2008 5:38:24 PM
Author: Serg

Wink,

I Understood problem, there are not yet Lab which can grade what is TRUE Traditional Jazz .

If somebody will open such Lab your life will very easy, you can easy find and buy TRUE traditional Jazz.

And So It Is!

and all other consumers will buy same records.
But how will we receive new Jazz records after ? new true Jazz will not come more.
Hope best Jazz exist right now

I think you are taking the allegory a little too far. Jazz is a style and there will always be new Jazz. Rock is a style and there will be new Rock, Acid Rock is a style, goodness help us, but there are folks who love it, I just don''t want to get any of it labeled as Jazz...

People are pushing the envelope with diamond cutting and new cuts will come, some of them may take off commercially, some may not, but if not traditional Hearts and Arrows cut, THEN DO NOT CALL IT HEARTS AND ARROWS CUT.

Why is that such a hard concept?

Wink

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/9/2008 6:00:37 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/9/2008 5:41:32 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/9/2008 5:39:45 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/9/2008 5:38:24 PM
Author: Serg

Wink,

I Understood problem, there are not yet Lab which can grade what is TRUE Traditional Jazz .

If somebody will open such Lab your life will very easy, you can easy find and buy TRUE traditional Jazz.

And So It Is!

and all other consumers will buy same records.
But how will we receive new Jazz records after ? new true Jazz will not come more.
Hope best Jazz exist right now

I think you are taking the allegory a little too far. Jazz is a style and there will always be new Jazz. Rock is a style and there will be new Rock, Acid Rock is a style, goodness help us, but there are folks who love it, I just don't want to get any of it labeled as Jazz...

People are pushing the envelope with diamond cutting and new cuts will come, some of them may take off commercially, some may not, but if not traditional Hearts and Arrows cut, THEN DO NOT CALL IT HEARTS AND ARROWS CUT.

Why is that such a hard concept?

Wink

Simple..., because to me they still look like H&A's..., and if you all agree its still considered a top-performer..., than why not call it by its name?

Its good for the cutter..., good for the jeweler..., good for the consumer...., than why narrow/limit the range?

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/9/2008 5:57:51 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/9/2008 5:41:32 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/9/2008 5:39:45 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/9/2008 5:38:24 PM
Author: Serg

Wink,

I Understood problem, there are not yet Lab which can grade what is TRUE Traditional Jazz .

If somebody will open such Lab your life will very easy, you can easy find and buy TRUE traditional Jazz.

And So It Is!

and all other consumers will buy same records.
But how will we receive new Jazz records after ? new true Jazz will not come more.
Hope best Jazz exist right now

Serg.. Isn''t that the problem, who has perfect pitch and can recognize great jazz. ?

Consumer and manufactures can recognize NEW great Goods,
Then Labs create grade based on CURRENT consumer preferences and stop Innovation

It is problem, real problem for diamond market since 1996- year. In first 10-20 years it help increase sells for such diamonds, but then best companies should work against Labs to find new market niches ( and most current innovative companies will lost market position)

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/9/2008 6:05:55 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/9/2008 6:00:37 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/9/2008 5:41:32 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/9/2008 5:39:45 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/9/2008 5:38:24 PM
Author: Serg

Wink,

I Understood problem, there are not yet Lab which can grade what is TRUE Traditional Jazz .

If somebody will open such Lab your life will very easy, you can easy find and buy TRUE traditional Jazz.

And So It Is!

and all other consumers will buy same records.
But how will we receive new Jazz records after ? new true Jazz will not come more.
Hope best Jazz exist right now

I think you are taking the allegory a little too far. Jazz is a style and there will always be new Jazz. Rock is a style and there will be new Rock, Acid Rock is a style, goodness help us, but there are folks who love it, I just don''t want to get any of it labeled as Jazz...

People are pushing the envelope with diamond cutting and new cuts will come, some of them may take off commercially, some may not, but if not traditional Hearts and Arrows cut, THEN DO NOT CALL IT HEARTS AND ARROWS CUT.

Why is that such a hard concept?

Wink

Simple..., because to me they still look like H&A''s..., and if you all agree its still considered a top-performer..., than why not call it by its name?

Its good for the cutter..., good for the jeweler..., good for the consumer...., than why narrow the range?

It is NOT good for the cutter, it is NOT good for the jeweler, it is NOT good for the consumer who wants a traditional hearts and arrows.

I did not narrow the range, I merely accept the existing range. I am not willing to widen and water it down and thus destroy the whole concept just to make it more convenient for someone likes the look of the longer lower girdle faceted diamonds. I do not think one should call "butterflies" hearts, nor do I think someone should call "lawn darts" hearts. I think hearts should be called hearts, using the same 20 plus year old definition that we have been using.

Not one point in this whole litany of points has even convinced me that we should be having this conversation, let alone having to defend why we wont include the downtrodden into the tent and call them hearts so that we wont hurt their feelings. This is not a political correctness issue, this is an issue of definitions and the definition in question was laid down 20 some years ago. It is ridicules on its face to assume that one person can change it because in his mind he "logically" thinks he can. Even if we all agreed to do so on Pricescope, I guarantee you all it would do would be to give more ammunition to the B&M stores who would use that information to tell their clients that Internet vendors can not be trusted, they all lie to you about what a Hearts and Arrows diamond is, you can be sure they lie to you about other important things as well.

That, my friend is what would happen. I will NEVER ACQUIESCE to it, nor will the vast majority of the consumers who study cut, nor will the vast majority of the cutters who proudly produce what we today call Hearts and Arrows. There will always be those who wish to do so, and they may do so at their own peril as they will lose the trust of those who do their homework.

I think it is time for me to go play with my grand children, they at least are not confused when grandpa tells them, "NO!" They actually understand the word and what it means. Fortunately, I rarely need to use it, preferring the word, "Yes."

Just as I will not buy Van Halen as Jazz, I will not accept stones outside the given parameters as H&A. I like Rock, I just don''t call it Jazz. When I see one of Rhino''s diamonds, I have no doubt I will like it, I just will not today, tomorrow or twenty years from now, call it a Hearts and Arrows. I repeat my original question, "Why is that such a hard concept?"

Wink

P.S. I still hold to the thought that Richard Sherwood may a brilliant suggestion and am waiting to hear whether or not Rhino will use that very complimentary verbiage to more properly describe his diamonds that have the longer lower girdle faceting.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/9/2008 6:06:05 PM
Author: Serg

Consumer and manufactures can recognize NEW great Goods,

Then Labs create grade based on CURRENT consumer preferences and stop Innovation


It is problem, real problem for diamond market since 1996- year. In first 10-20 years it help increase sells for such diamonds, but then best companies should work against Labs to find new market niches ( and most current innovative companies will lost market position)

The biggest problem is that indoor lighting is going through a huge change right now in the US and likely soon in the rest of the world.
CFT bulbs put out totally different lighting than what was in use before.
If we lock up diamond design to tightly it can not move towards what works best in the new indoor lighting.
The last time indoor lighting changed this much from lamps and candles to harsher electric lights diamonds began a slow evolution to the brilliant cuts that are most common today.
Locking diamond cuts into what works best today is a very large mistake.

 

[risingsun]

I am your customer buying a diamond online. I've been looking at diamonds at my B&M's. I've used my own well-cut diamond ring for comparison. I go into a jeweler who carries HOF. I am

. The other diamonds I have seen can't even compare. I spend a lot of time looking at these stones. This is what I want. I find PS. I spend a lot of time learning about diamonds and H&A in particular. I discover I can save a lot of money by buying online. I want to know that my online diamond will perform as well as HOF and will have the same appearance. I contact an independent appraiser who assures me that either choice will give me a superior performing stone, but I will not be compromising with my online choice. My online choice is a WF ACA. The reason being that it was not an ambiguous decision. The diamond was as described. I could have chosen a Crafted By Infinity or a true H&A from GOG with the same confidence. I would not buy a V&A stone, regardless of its performance, as a H&A. It is a different pattern with its own attributes. There needs to be clearly defined standards and parameters that don't "slide" around. IMO, it doesn't earn the confidence of your customer.

ETA: I do understand the difference between pattern and optical symmetry/performance. What has been said in this thread is not too difficult for the consumer to understand. What is difficult is why it is so important to call a V a heart.

 

[Shay37]

Date: 8/9/2008 9:15:02 PM
Author: risingsun
I am your customer buying a diamond online. I''ve been looking at diamonds at my B&M''s. I''ve used my own well-cut diamond ring for comparison. I go into a jeweler who carries HOF. I am

. The other diamonds I have seen can''t even compare. I spend a lot of time looking at these stones. This is what I want. I find PS. I spend a lot of time learning about diamonds and H&A in particular. I discover I can save a lot of money by buying online. I want to know that my online diamond will perform as well as HOF and will have the same appearance. I contact an independent appraiser who assures me that either choice will give me a superior performing stone, but I will not be compromising with my online choice. My online choice is a WF ACA. The reason being that it was not an ambiguous decision. The diamond was as described. I could have chosen a Crafted By Infinity or a true H&A from GOG with the same confidence. I would not buy a V&A stone, regardless of its performance, as a H&A. It is a different pattern with its own attributes. There needs to be clearly defined standards and parameters that don''t ''slide'' around. IMO, it doesn''t earn the confidence of your customer.

ETA: I do understand the difference between pattern and optical symmetry/performance. What has been said in this thread is not too difficult for the consumer to understand. What is difficult is why it is so important to call a V a heart.

Short answer to that is price. I think we can all agree that V and arrows is not a known or popular term in the mainstream. (neither is butterflies and arrows) Hearts and Arrows is very recognizable. One of these commands a premium, and the others do not. It is, as with everything in this world, about the bottom line. (unfortunately)

BTW, I actually read all of the pages and responses before chiming in with my $.02, so please don''t flame me for it.

shay

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/9/2008 11:29:19 PM
Author: Shay37

Date: 8/9/2008 9:15:02 PM
Author: risingsun
I am your customer buying a diamond online. I''ve been looking at diamonds at my B&M''s. I''ve used my own well-cut diamond ring for comparison. I go into a jeweler who carries HOF. I am

. The other diamonds I have seen can''t even compare. I spend a lot of time looking at these stones. This is what I want. I find PS. I spend a lot of time learning about diamonds and H&A in particular. I discover I can save a lot of money by buying online. I want to know that my online diamond will perform as well as HOF and will have the same appearance. I contact an independent appraiser who assures me that either choice will give me a superior performing stone, but I will not be compromising with my online choice. My online choice is a WF ACA. The reason being that it was not an ambiguous decision. The diamond was as described. I could have chosen a Crafted By Infinity or a true H&A from GOG with the same confidence. I would not buy a V&A stone, regardless of its performance, as a H&A. It is a different pattern with its own attributes. There needs to be clearly defined standards and parameters that don''t ''slide'' around. IMO, it doesn''t earn the confidence of your customer.

ETA: I do understand the difference between pattern and optical symmetry/performance. What has been said in this thread is not too difficult for the consumer to understand. What is difficult is why it is so important to call a V a heart.

Short answer to that is price. I think we can all agree that V and arrows is not a known or popular term in the mainstream. (neither is butterflies and arrows) Hearts and Arrows is very recognizable. One of these commands a premium, and the others do not. It is, as with everything in this world, about the bottom line. (unfortunately)

BTW, I actually read all of the pages and responses before chiming in with my $.02, so please don''t flame me for it.

shay

Nice to read some reasonable responses from non nerds RS and Shay. We eggspurts have each other to flame

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/9/2008 9:15:02 PM
Author: risingsun
I am your customer buying a diamond online. I''ve been looking at diamonds at my B&M''s. I''ve used my own well-cut diamond ring for comparison. I go into a jeweler who carries HOF. I am

. The other diamonds I have seen can''t even compare. I spend a lot of time looking at these stones. This is what I want. I find PS. I spend a lot of time learning about diamonds and H&A in particular. I discover I can save a lot of money by buying online. I want to know that my online diamond will perform as well as HOF and will have the same appearance. I contact an independent appraiser who assures me that either choice will give me a superior performing stone, but I will not be compromising with my online choice. My online choice is a WF ACA. The reason being that it was not an ambiguous decision. The diamond was as described. I could have chosen a Crafted By Infinity or a true H&A from GOG with the same confidence. I would not buy a V&A stone, regardless of its performance, as a H&A. It is a different pattern with its own attributes. There needs to be clearly defined standards and parameters that don''t ''slide'' around. IMO, it doesn''t earn the confidence of your customer.


ETA: I do understand the difference between pattern and optical symmetry/performance. What has been said in this thread is not too difficult for the consumer to understand. What is difficult is why it is so important to call a V a heart.

I would say I don''t care what they are called as long as the PS tutorial presents them in a fair and correct manner. Saying they fail and creating an incorrect perception that they are bad is what I disagree with.
I has been a practice of the diamond trade to put modified in front of the name of variations. I don''t have a problem with doing that with traditional h&a as suggested by Richard S.
I''m looking forward to the new tutorial as it should be much more balanced and correct.

Jon feels that if the performance is the same when combined with the right angles they should be in the same category and since no one knows where the 80% limit came from in the first place it has some merit.
But that has been rejected with some good reasons so a sensible compromise is to use the "modified traditional h&a" label.

 

[jasontb]

Date: 8/9/2008 11:29:19 PM
Author: Shay37

It is, as with everything in this world, about the bottom line. (unfortunately)

I dunno. Seems to me it is more about getting people to understand that traditional H&A is not necessarily the ultimate. That sometimes different proportions are warranted or preferred which result in a modified H&A pattern. If it we just about the bottom line, people would not cut stone with the modified LGF. They would just cut to the historical H&A dimensions and collect the extra money for 'passing' an arbitrary set of rules devised to tug at the heart strings (

) of consumers.

 

[risingsun]

Updating the tutorial and finding a more accurate description for Jon's diamonds seems to be an appropriate alternate, Strm. I don't see that anyone would find fault with that. What I don't want to see is the top performng H&A diamond used in a pejorative manner in the service of a modified stone. I would also like to know who is selling under-performing H&A diamonds. It doesn't appear to be the well known PS vendors. I've checked the stats and done an IS on at least a dozen HOF and found them to be superior performers, as well. I know that's not a lot of research for a "eggspurt" [TM Garry], but I believe it's due diligence for a consumer.

ETA: Jason~I did not buy a H&A due to romancing the stone. I took a great deal of time researching the cut, both for pattern and performance. What you are posting is exactly my point. We have been trying--at least some of us--to say that different high performing stones may have different patterns. You are stating that one is better than the other. When the experts are not willing or able to make that distinction, I don't know how you are drawing this conclusion.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/10/2008 12:29:18 AM
Author: risingsun
Updating the tutorial and finding a more accurate description for Jon''s diamonds seems to be an appropriate alternate, Strm. I don''t see that anyone would find fault with that. What I don''t want to see is the top performng H&A diamond used in a pejorative manner in the service of a modified stone. I would also like to know who is selling under-performing H&A diamonds. It doesn''t appear to be the well known PS vendors. I''ve checked the stats and done an IS on at least a dozen HOF and found them to be superior performers, as well. I know that''s not a lot of research for a ''eggspurt'' [TM Garry], but I believe it''s due diligence for a consumer.

Off the top of my head I can recall 3 vendors who are now banned who tried to pass off bad performing and even some not even close to H&A diamonds as H&A Top stones who I tangled with.
One that I recall was a 41.5/35.5 combo with perfect hearts that the vendor swore was a top stone.
In other words they don''t survive long around here.
I''m not going to name names.

The stone that sparked these threads is far above those both in performance and closeness to traditional h&a.

I have looked at close to 30-40 hof diamonds over the years and most were excellent but over priced.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 8/10/2008 12:45:40 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/10/2008 12:29:18 AM
Author: risingsun
Updating the tutorial and finding a more accurate description for Jon's diamonds seems to be an appropriate alternate, Strm. I don't see that anyone would find fault with that. What I don't want to see is the top performng H&A diamond used in a pejorative manner in the service of a modified stone. I would also like to know who is selling under-performing H&A diamonds. It doesn't appear to be the well known PS vendors. I've checked the stats and done an IS on at least a dozen HOF and found them to be superior performers, as well. I know that's not a lot of research for a 'eggspurt' [TM Garry], but I believe it's due diligence for a consumer.

Off the top of my head I can recall 3 vendors who are now banned who tried to pass off bad performing and even some not even close to H&A diamonds as H&A Top stones who I tangled with.
One that I recall was a 41.5/35.5 combo with perfect hearts that the vendor swore was a top stone.
In other words they don't survive long around here.
I'm not going to name names.

The stone that sparked these threads is far above those both in performance and closeness to traditional h&a.

I have looked at close to 30-40 hof diamonds over the years and most were excellent but over priced.

Thanks for the response. It was helpful. I have tried to educate my local HOF jeweler that all online H&A diamonds are not the same. It's a hard sell. He's still trying to switch me to HOF, but the price is

 

[jasontb]

Date: 8/10/2008 12:29:18 AM
Author: risingsun
ETA: Jason~I did not buy a H&A due to romancing the stone. I took a great deal of time researching the cut, both for pattern and performance. What you are posting is exactly my point. We have been trying--at least some of us--to say that different high performing stones may have different patterns. You are stating that one is better than the other. When the experts are not willing or able to make that distinction, I don't know how you are drawing this conclusion.

We won't argue about what lgfs are best for a given combo because you are right, I am not an expert on the topic (although I do know enough to know that the proportions that create a heart pattern are not necessarily the proportions that create the best performing stone...they are just the proportions that create a heart pattern). I really should not have even mentioned that in my reply, because one performing better than the other was not the point of my statement and only made it more difficult to see what I was getting at.

So, let me rephrase:


I dunno. Seems to me it is more about getting people to understand that there is no inherent benefit to a tradition H&A pattern over a modified H&A pattern (except for marketing, history, romance, tradition, and the ease of showing one's customer their stone is 'best'). If it were just about the bottom line, people would not *intentionally* cut stones which displayed cleft hearts. They would just cut to the historical H&A dimensions and collect the extra money for 'passing' an arbitrary set of rules devised to tug at the heart strings of consumers.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/10/2008 2:25:24 AM
Author: jasontb

Date: 8/10/2008 12:29:18 AM
Author: risingsun
ETA: Jason~I did not buy a H&A due to romancing the stone. I took a great deal of time researching the cut, both for pattern and performance. What you are posting is exactly my point. We have been trying--at least some of us--to say that different high performing stones may have different patterns. You are stating that one is better than the other. When the experts are not willing or able to make that distinction, I don't know how you are drawing this conclusion.

We won't argue about what lgfs are best for a given combo because you are right, I am not an expert on the topic (although I do know enough to know that the proportions that create a heart pattern are not necessarily the proportions that create the best performing stone...they are just the proportions that create a heart pattern). I really should not have even mentioned that in my reply, because one performing better than the other was not the point of my statement and only made it more difficult to see what I was getting at.

So, let me rephrase:


I dunno. Seems to me it is more about getting people to understand that there is no inherent benefit to a tradition H&A pattern over a modified H&A pattern (except for marketing, history, romance, tradition, and the ease of showing one's customer their stone is 'best'). If it were just about the bottom line, people would not *intentionally* cut stones which displayed cleft hearts. They would just cut to the historical H&A dimensions and collect the extra money for 'passing' an arbitrary set of rules devised to tug at the heart strings of consumers.

I see alots transpired. As usual jason you've hit the nail on the head again. Good to see you in here.

Shay and rising sun, thanks for you commentary. I don't think you realize I could just as easily tell my facility to cut the lower girdles to 76-77%. They have dops ready for that and will cut me what I want. I have experimented based on personal research and I happen to really like the effects (as well as many consumers) of cutting the lower girdle facets longer. A few clients have even posted on here. Bem from Canada was one who comes to mind (although it wasn't one of the specific ones we're discussing, but it did have longer lgf's like what we're talking about). Please understand, cutting this pattern is not easier or less difficult than cutting a traditional pattern. One is not harder to attain so if this is the impression you're getting and you think perhaps it's about me trying to get more dollars because I'm trying to force a new pattern on others this is not the case. I'm not trying to take one cutting facilities mistakes and capitalize on them.

Let me clarify some things that seem to me to be misconceptions I'm reading in this thread.

1. I am not attacking the traditional H&A pattern. Long live traditional H&A! My inventory of rounds consistly primarily of this pattern and we provide photography to prove it. Always have always will.
2. Yes I am introducing a new pattern.
3. It is not a traditional H&A pattern.
4. It is neither better nor worse, than a traditional H&A. Neither in Optical Symmetry nor light performance.
5. It appears the hang-up I'm reading is the adjective being used in front of the words "Hearts & Arrows" that people are getting hung up about. I am not trying to equate the pattern with "traditional" H&A patterning. It clearly is not.
6. Rich Sherwood hit the nail on the head. It is a modifed Hearts & Arrows. Everyone seems happy with that adjective. I agree on both accounts. It's not traditional and it is modified.
7. While it is not a traditional Hearts & Arrows pattern the pattern does not resemble a duck, a cake, a butterfly or the letter V. It resembles a Heart. Unless someone can show me some other international symbol it more closely resembles than a Heart, the same logic that drives me to call 76% lower halves a Heart is the same logic that drives me to call it a Heart.
8. I am not suggesting all perfectly symmetrical patterns be called Hearts when they do not resemble one. For example the pattern produced by 70-74% lower halves closes the V from the Heart leaving no distinguishing Heart pattern. I think Wink said it looked like a lawn dart.

I think it looks more like a shortened golf tee.

I am not suggesting that we enforce a name on a pattern that it clearly does not resemble.

Friends, I'm not trying to call something it isn't ie. I'm not trying to identify it with a traditional Hearts & Arrows. At the same time I do not want to call it something it isn't. Ie I'm not going to call it a butterfly when it clearly does not resemble a butterfly. My conscience will not allow me to call the pattern on the pavilion something other than a Hearts pattern and I don't believe I am being unreasonable in my logic or approach. There is no other pattern on earth it most closely resembles than a Heart. Since it is a different type of Heart pattern from the traditional, I will ultimately name what I am having cut but I am of course open to suggestions. Rich, I really like your suggestion too and on an appraisal would be perfectly appropriate although a little on the sterile side when it comes to naming a diamond.

You can charge me that extra $100 when we ship the next diamond to you for appraisal.

Also if someone can show me a symbol that it resembles more closely than a Heart, please ... don't argue with me. Post the symbol/graphic and I would be happy to consider that. I am not unreasonable.

Oh and last but not least. Marty ... Sergey is lying. We are all conspiring against you.

Warm regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/9/2008 5:42:31 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/9/2008 5:16:56 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/9/2008 3:03:41 PM
Author: agc
Marty raises the issue of diamond size with respect to viewer being neglected in grading H&A''s. Wink says it either is a true H&A or it is not with no in between. With this in mind is the 2 ct diamond in this link a true H&A or a non traditional modified H&A? LGF is < 80%

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3488/

1) This doesn''t appear to be the same stone that started this whole thing, which I could easily see didn''t cut the mustard as a classic H&A

2) I downloaded the Sarin file (since I counldn''t find a Helium to import into diamondcalc) because i wanted a bigger picture and printout to take some rudimentary measuerments from, and imported it into DiamondCalc. Here is the comparison.


Sorry I originally made a composite with the default DIamondCalc This is NOT the correct composite IGNORE

This is the correct composite..

I think it might be called marginal but not overly bad, two deep clefts and assymetric ''V''s.

Quick question on this Marty. Curious. Which do you trust more a live centered photograph or a Sarin model?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/10/2008 3:10:09 AM
Author: Rhino
6. Rich Sherwood hit the nail on the head. It is a modifed Hearts & Arrows. Everyone seems happy with that adjective. I agree on both accounts. It''s not traditional and it is modified.

Great, then we will not need to read one of your long posts on this topic Rhino

They are nice looking stones and add the concept that small changes introduce differentiation. Not much differentiation, but a teensy bit is better than none at all

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/10/2008 3:15:15 AM
Author: Rhino

Quick question on this Marty. Curious. Which do you trust more a live centered photograph or a Sarin model?

Good question Rhino...

1) Problem is that with a "photo" I don't know the size or nature of of the "viewer" used with respect to the stone, and of course there is the inherent problem of centering which may inadvertently DEGRADE the apparent pattern.

2) I don't know how the true accuracy of a Sarin/Helium/Ogi data file would effect the rendered file but at least it could correct for diamond size and self center and standize the lighting angles.

Inherently, a photo is worth a thousand words and is better, but as with ASET imagery, or my own patented fire performance imaging, the LARGER the viewer, the less the potential problems with relative size.

ANY PHYSICAL VIEWER is going to suffer problems with size ratio which effects the angular input, and therefore the resultant pattern, and, as Ive always said the current range of H&A viewers are much too small, and the "specs" the HRD quoted for average H&A viewers is SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN what was quoted by Yamashita.

ANY RENDERED IMAGE going to suffer from the inherent angular scanning accuracy [0.1 degree 2 sigma?]

I think a standard 1" diameter H&A viewer is inherently inaccurate as a shot size glass devices, but both are sufficient to present symmetry, but I think not to present relative patterning accuracy.

SOMEONE has to set and DEFINE the physical standard, and the angular variance allowed.

I use a 11" diameter source, 10" high, for fire performance potential comparison photos, and I'd actually would like to see it built larger.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

deleted, waste of breath

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/10/2008 7:14:06 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
deleted, waste of breath

Yup