True Hearts - Technical discussion

[Rhino]

Date: 8/3/2008 5:34:35 PM
Author: DiaGem
Sorry for the thread jack..., but this needs to be sound...

That Ugly Duckling is ''The Largest Flawless Diamond in The World''

''The Incomparable Diamond''

A 407.48 carats Shield Shape Step Cut...

LOL... woops... asked to soon.

Thanks!

 

[Rhino]

Finally, on-topic with the question in this thread, here’s another musical comparison: When rock came along the music industry didn’t try to classify it as Jazz. It was given its own name. Later on hybrids of jazz-rock became styled as “fusion.” The roots of traditional jazz have always been preserved in respect for that heritage... In the jazz sense we already have a traditional definition for H&A. I don’t believe that definition should change simply because a new style appears that can be equally appealing. The original Japanese developers and the many cutters who have labored for decades since to preserve the traditional H&A niche deserve our respect and an accurate historical identity. There is always room for new, equally appealing classifications.

The Open Heart. (or the Open Hearts pattern)

My initial vision for a brand encompassed 3 appearances which I wanted to combine into a single term. Trinity.

A Trinty diamond can come in one of 3 flavors embodying different nuances in optical characteristics.

One with a high emphasis on brightness in diffuse lighting and emphasized pin flash with broad flash in spot. These are the longer lower girdle varieties.

The second would embody traditional H&A cutting.

The third I have yet to determine the exact parameters as I am experimenting with various short lower girdle length and star combos. It must embody the appearance I know it must attain and this is a work in progress.

3 appearances, each cut with equal precision. The primary factor determining the differences in appearance being that of lower girdle facet length. I have been considering names for the patterns for a while but "The Open Heart" seems to fit best for those cut with longer lower girdles. At least to me and at this time.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/3/2008 8:59:56 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/3/2008 6:49:30 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Garry,

Didn''t mean to miss your post and thanks for your input. Just some comments.

Date: 8/2/2008 12:52:55 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Rhino I think it should be clear to you that the stone that started the other thread may not be called H&A''s by anyone who chooses to adehre to accepted standards.

I see diagem had brought this up but in this country there are no recognized ''accepted standards''. The few labs in this country I''ve seen label ''Hearts & Arrows'' when I''ve had the chance to see didn''t come close to the preciseness of the pattern produced by diamonds that I consider to have superior Optical Symmetry. I have not flown to every lab in Europe who has a standard and have no intention to but in this country no lab has laid out what I consider to be ''accepted standards''. If you''ve never read through my tutuorial then you wouldn''t know I have already created a grading system for the subject of Optical Symmetry.
That is an appalling attitude Rhino, considering that in every instance from patents to science the world has been global for more than a century. Besides Brian prsented his H&A''s standard at the IDCC 2004 conference and it has been on this US website for many years. Your tutorial on your website is information rather than authoritative unless it has been published. These are global norms.

But I have no doubt thet it is a beautiful diamond, just as many diamonds are that do not even have top symmetry.

Are you suggesting that an open Hearts pattern is evidence that a diamond doesn''t have ''top'' symmetry? of course not

You could go your own way and say that this is a GOG standard h&A''s.

You could do studies and surveys etc to prove that it is better than a sub 80% lg depth H&A''s as recognised by the rest of the world.

And everyone here who believes H&A''s have some special optical attributes should prove that too.

Till then I look on with mild amusement at this debate, and hope with fingers crossed that someone will indeed do something to prove their arguements are valid.

Garry ... you''re not hearing me. I did not say lgf''s => than 80% are better. I said they are equally as beautiful. For clarification and from a purely gemological perspective, I am also stating that the Hearts pattern created by =>80% lgf''s is not inferior in any way the pattern created by 75-78%. Both are Hearts patterns just not identical. In my professional opinion one is not more truer or better than the other. I stand corrected - I should have written I challenge you to prove there is no detriment to longer lower GF''s compared to diamonds that show hearts that look like hearts.

Peace,

please read blue answers Rhino

What kind of proof are you looking for?

I have found enough proof on my own ... so much so to put my money where my mouth is. What kind of proof are you personally seeking? IS? ASET? PGS? DC? All of the above?

All the best,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/4/2008 12:47:12 AM
Author: Rhino

What kind of proof are you looking for?

I have found enough proof on my own ... so much so to put my money where my mouth is. What kind of proof are you personally seeking? IS? ASET? PGS? DC? All of the above?

All the best,

Peer reviewed study Rhino.
Real research - not a video made in questionable lighting and vox pop opinions.

e.g. Get the diamonds from the sources you mentioned, and especially good examples of bad stones (never just all good stones), and then choose an environment that will never change, formulate questions, trial them, run initial data past a statistician, and then conduct the number of surveys (caputuring data on participants, like age, clothing colour etc etc) and use a statistician to cross check for errors - if found, repeat all steps again. that sort of thing.

Then you can make your stones available for other instruments, labs etc to check their results - you might even be able to sell or rent out some or all the stones as a permanent master stone set. the others are saleable or recuts.

Have you bothered to check the MSS stones yet?

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/4/2008 1:05:21 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/4/2008 12:47:12 AM
Author: Rhino

What kind of proof are you looking for?

I have found enough proof on my own ... so much so to put my money where my mouth is. What kind of proof are you personally seeking? IS? ASET? PGS? DC? All of the above?

All the best,

Peer reviewed study Rhino.
Real research - not a video made in questionable lighting and vox pop opinions.

e.g. Get the diamonds from the sources you mentioned, and especially good examples of bad stones (never just all good stones), and then choose an environment that will never change, formulate questions, trial them, run initial data past a statistician, and then conduct the number of surveys (caputuring data on participants, like age, clothing colour etc etc) and use a statistician to cross check for errors - if found, repeat all steps again. that sort of thing.

Then you can make your stones available for other instruments, labs etc to check their results - you might even be able to sell or rent out some or all the stones as a permanent master stone set. the others are saleable or recuts.

Have you bothered to check the MSS stones yet?

I have done this Garry. I don't know if you're aware of this but we have hundreds of clients who are in our store each week. I had a few preliminary diamonds cut back last year for the first time and showed them to many consumers in our store in various lighting, always the same from natural daylight coming in the windows that are in front of my whole store to spot lighting.

I don't see the need for a statician or to record what color shirt every person was wearing nor to send them to people in the trade. The only opinion I cared about was that of my clients. People either loved them or they didn't. That's all I needed to know not to mention the fact that I am intimately familiar with how leakage and obstruction affect the face up appearance in most lighting environments. Regarding the lab aspects. I know that too. If I am allowed I'll link you to a sample so you can review the data. I tried to attach a .gem file but my gem files are greater than 100k as I publish all the Helium data in my gem files.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/4/2008 1:12:28 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/4/2008 1:05:21 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/4/2008 12:47:12 AM
Author: Rhino

What kind of proof are you looking for?

I have found enough proof on my own ... so much so to put my money where my mouth is. What kind of proof are you personally seeking? IS? ASET? PGS? DC? All of the above?

All the best,

Peer reviewed study Rhino.
Real research - not a video made in questionable lighting and vox pop opinions.

e.g. Get the diamonds from the sources you mentioned, and especially good examples of bad stones (never just all good stones), and then choose an environment that will never change, formulate questions, trial them, run initial data past a statistician, and then conduct the number of surveys (caputuring data on participants, like age, clothing colour etc etc) and use a statistician to cross check for errors - if found, repeat all steps again. that sort of thing.

Then you can make your stones available for other instruments, labs etc to check their results - you might even be able to sell or rent out some or all the stones as a permanent master stone set. the others are saleable or recuts.

Have you bothered to check the MSS stones yet?

I have done this Garry. I don''t know if you''re aware of this but we have hundreds of clients who are in our store each week. I had a few preliminary diamonds cut back last year for the first time and showed them to many consumers.

I don''t see the need for a statician or to record what color shirt every person was wearing. People either loved them or they didn''t. That''s all I needed to know. Published research is not for what ''you need to know'' - it is to establish new rules like what should H&A''s standards be like etc If you want your own standard then you need not bother writting here - just tell the 100''s of people each week. Regarding the lab aspects. I know that too. If I can I''ll link you to a sample so you can review the data. Dont bother Rhino, unless it reatable and authorative it is not research it is hearsay I tried to attach a .gem file but my gem files are greater than 100k as I publish all the Helium data in my gem files. You can save the small format easily from DiamCalc

Dear Rhino, I do not think this part of the conversation is worth continuing.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/4/2008 1:19:46 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/4/2008 1:12:28 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/4/2008 1:05:21 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/4/2008 12:47:12 AM
Author: Rhino

What kind of proof are you looking for?

I have found enough proof on my own ... so much so to put my money where my mouth is. What kind of proof are you personally seeking? IS? ASET? PGS? DC? All of the above?

All the best,

Peer reviewed study Rhino.
Real research - not a video made in questionable lighting and vox pop opinions.

e.g. Get the diamonds from the sources you mentioned, and especially good examples of bad stones (never just all good stones), and then choose an environment that will never change, formulate questions, trial them, run initial data past a statistician, and then conduct the number of surveys (caputuring data on participants, like age, clothing colour etc etc) and use a statistician to cross check for errors - if found, repeat all steps again. that sort of thing.

Then you can make your stones available for other instruments, labs etc to check their results - you might even be able to sell or rent out some or all the stones as a permanent master stone set. the others are saleable or recuts.

Have you bothered to check the MSS stones yet?

I have done this Garry. I don't know if you're aware of this but we have hundreds of clients who are in our store each week. I had a few preliminary diamonds cut back last year for the first time and showed them to many consumers.

I don't see the need for a statician or to record what color shirt every person was wearing. People either loved them or they didn't. That's all I needed to know. Published research is not for what 'you need to know' - it is to establish new rules like what should H&A's standards be like etc If you want your own standard then you need not bother writting here - just tell the 100's of people each week. Regarding the lab aspects. I know that too. If I can I'll link you to a sample so you can review the data. Dont bother Rhino, unless it reatable and authorative it is not research it is hearsay I tried to attach a .gem file but my gem files are greater than 100k as I publish all the Helium data in my gem files. You can save the small format easily from DiamCalc

Dear Rhino, I do not think this part of the conversation is worth continuing.

So GIA and AGS' opinion is not authoratative? Garry you crack me up. What "authority" are you talking about?
I don't have DC on this computer. Only my work comps.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/4/2008 1:27:19 AM
Author: Rhino

So GIA and AGS'' opinion is not authoratative? Garry you crack me up. What ''authority'' are you talking about?

GIA publish in G&G which practices fiercly independant peer review of GIA and GIA GTL works
AGS publish in http://spie.org Optical Engineering and they presented and published in the proceedings of IDCC 1
Both publish patents which is another form of review.
Others can suggest more.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/4/2008 1:05:21 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/4/2008 12:47:12 AM
Author: Rhino

What kind of proof are you looking for?

I have found enough proof on my own ... so much so to put my money where my mouth is. What kind of proof are you personally seeking? IS? ASET? PGS? DC? All of the above?

All the best,

Peer reviewed study Rhino.
Real research - not a video made in questionable lighting and vox pop opinions.

e.g. Get the diamonds from the sources you mentioned, and especially good examples of bad stones (never just all good stones), and then choose an environment that will never change, formulate questions, trial them, run initial data past a statistician, and then conduct the number of surveys (caputuring data on participants, like age, clothing colour etc etc) and use a statistician to cross check for errors - if found, repeat all steps again. that sort of thing.

Then you can make your stones available for other instruments, labs etc to check their results - you might even be able to sell or rent out some or all the stones as a permanent master stone set. the others are saleable or recuts.

Have you bothered to check the MSS stones yet?

Also ... can you name for me one brand on the market you know of that has done all that you mention above and to what authority they had to submit these results to beyond the recognized labs in our country? Can you also show me these results for whatever brand you may be talking about? I would like to see how many, over what period of time, what color shirts & pants they wore, who the supposed authority was and the name of the statician. In this country and abroad whether you or anyone likes it or not GIA is the recognized authority that consumers ask for although I place the opinion of AGS in equal regard. It is their opinion PLUS & most importantly my own that matters most to me when I am making financial decisions. Are American jeweler''s now subject to some other authority I am not aware of??? I would like to know your answers to these questions.

Regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/4/2008 2:05:00 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/4/2008 1:27:19 AM
Author: Rhino

So GIA and AGS' opinion is not authoratative? Garry you crack me up. What 'authority' are you talking about?

GIA publish in G&G which practices fiercly independant peer review of GIA and GIA GTL works
AGS publish in http://spie.org Optical Engineering and they presented and published in the proceedings of IDCC 1
Both publish patents which is another form of review.
Others can suggest more.

Then the kind of diamonds I am talking about have already been peer reviewed by both labs as each and every diamond being cut is virtually identical and there is absolutey no problem with them. They meet both labs top requirements for every feature they grade about the cut. Is there some other opinion I should concern myself with besides that of the major labs in America and the consumers here that you think I'm leaving out?

Garry ... this has been a project of mine for a fairly long time now. I would never make major financial decisions without knowing how the diamonds would grade from the most conservative & respected labs. Since there is no official standard in this country for grading Optical Symmetry at this point I am confident in my own ability and expertise at this time. When, in this country one is introduced I will consider it when or if that time comes.

Have a good evening mate.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/4/2008 2:21:02 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/4/2008 2:05:00 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/4/2008 1:27:19 AM
Author: Rhino

So GIA and AGS'' opinion is not authoratative? Garry you crack me up. What ''authority'' are you talking about?

GIA publish in G&G which practices fiercly independant peer review of GIA and GIA GTL works
AGS publish in http://spie.org Optical Engineering and they presented and published in the proceedings of IDCC 1
Both publish patents which is another form of review.
Others can suggest more.

Then the kind of diamonds I am talking about have already been peer reviewed by both labs as each and every diamond being cut is virtually identical and there is absolutey no problem with them. They meet both labs top requirements for every feature they grade about the cut. Is there some other opinion I should concern myself with besides that of the major labs in America and the consumers here that you think I''m leaving out?

Garry ... this has been a project of mine for a fairly long time now. I would never make major financial decisions without knowing how the diamonds would grade from the most conservative & respected labs. Since there is no official standard in this country for grading Optical Symmetry at this point I am confident in my own ability and expertise at this time. When, in this country one is introduced I will consider it when or if that time comes.

Have a good evening mate.

Then sell them as AGS 0 or GIA Ex whatever
But neither labs grade Hearts and Arrows, and that is what started this whole discussion.
You want open hearts to be called hearts because you think they should because they are just as good looking.

You call them that, but do not expect everyoe else to agree Rhino.
enough already?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/4/2008 2:51:59 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Then sell them as AGS 0 or GIA Ex whatever
But neither labs grade Hearts and Arrows, and that is what started this whole discussion.
You want open hearts to be called hearts because you think they should because they are just as good looking.

You call them that, but do not expect everyoe else to agree Rhino.
enough already?

Sounds like the old Rhino who all of a sudden didn''t like painted halves after he couldn''t get them any longer.

Sorry Rhino, but that is what it is about, isn''t it?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Marty,

I strongly resent this remark. It is not correct and not in line with the contents of this thread.

Live long,

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/4/2008 11:40:14 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Marty,

I strongly resent this remark. It is not correct and not in line with the contents of this thread.

Live long,

Sorry Paul.. I base my comments on past history, that is what I observe, and it is only my opinion.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/3/2008 10:35:25 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/3/2008 10:11:45 PM
Author: Wink


Garry,

I did not imply that the I1''s were more expensive than the IF, just more beautiful. The IF was cut that way to maintain the weight of 1ct and was sold for a WHOLE lot more than I thought it was worth. (Not by me.)

I think that the three C''s of diamond rarity do normally determine 80 to 85% of the diamond''s value, but the beauty is in the cutting. If the cutting is poor enough the discount can be even larger.

Wink

Sadly Wink, what gets made out of rough is determined by market factors. Common sense and beauty have little to do with it.

The manufacturer owes it to his family and investors to make the most valuable diamond.

My comments about high clarity / rarity are a key issue - and that will not be replaced by cut quality ever, or in our lifetimes anyway.

Marty re GIA''s Certificates vs reports - it is a bit the same as this H&A''s discussion - world over they are called certs, and until gIA change common word usage, they can write whatever they like on their website as far as I am concerned

They may be right, but who cares.
Now if they were taken to task over CetifGate, well that might just change things..........

Sadly I can not dissagree with these comments. I was merely commenting that I had seen I''s that were more beautiful than some IF''s I have seen that were poorly cut. Beauty is in the cutting.

Wink

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/4/2008 11:40:14 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Marty,

I strongly resent this remark. It is not correct and not in line with the contents of this thread.

Live long,

Paul,
I want support Marty. Him post is in contents of this thread. History is very important for right understanding
I am agree what Marty need say him opinion in more correct style

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/3/2008 12:05:43 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/3/2008 4:27:15 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

But as Sergey says - we have already undertaken a huge amount of cost and a lot of work with NO HELP and that is really pathetic. The task ahead now we have enough stones is really daunting. If anyone wants to discuss this topic further then I suggest we statrt a new thread. But for now this is what we have in diamonds - http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/table.phtml and they are currently sitting in a tub in my safe.

Garry.. Since this is a CONSUMER forum, need I REMIND you, that your table linked aabove may be misleading in that it states that some of the stones are ''GIA Certified'', which is NOT THE CASE; they may have paper which is subject to whimsical change, and if not laminated may have a higher and better use.

GIA DOES NOT CERTIFY ANYONE, OR ANYTHING.

http://www.gia.edu/about/42/copyright__trademarks.cfm


However, make sure they don''t rip off your new lighting box

Fixed, Thanks

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/4/2008 11:18:20 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/4/2008 2:51:59 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Then sell them as AGS 0 or GIA Ex whatever
But neither labs grade Hearts and Arrows, and that is what started this whole discussion.
You want open hearts to be called hearts because you think they should because they are just as good looking.

You call them that, but do not expect everyoe else to agree Rhino.
enough already?

Sounds like the old Rhino who all of a sudden didn''t like painted halves after he couldn''t get them any longer.

Sorry Rhino, but that is what it is about, isn''t it?

Paul,

Don''t let Marty''s ignorant comments dissuade, aggravate or allow us to avert the subject at hand. He can''t help but try to make this personal instead of intelligently discussing the issues because there isn''t a shread of truth to his statement. He is either knowingly lying about me (slander upon which he will hear from my lawyers about) or just plain ignorant (which I am hoping is the case and will just apologize for his ignorance).

Marty, since you appear to want to make this personal as opposed to stick to the issues at hand,

a. I will not stoop to your level to try and twist this thread into a National Enquirer article.
b. I will make you aware of 2 facts you appear to be grossly ignorant of.

Fact 1. I had and always have had access to painted upper half diamonds. The truth, which doesn''t seem to sink in with you very well, is that after conducting my own observation testing around the country learned on my own that consumers didn''t prefer certain degrees of painting of the upper halves. While I have always had access to them I never cared to stock any abundance of them based on that information. I happen to know and have access to the other major factory that was cutting them. Any person who has been on this forum for any period of time will testify to this fact. In fact those who know me on a more professional level can even point to precise degrees of painting I avoid and have for years now. I did not all of a sudden not like them because I didn''t have access to them. You are lying and slandering me on a public forum if this is what you are insisting.
Fact 2. Said "painted half" diamond company flew to Long Island, NY in April of 2006 on the way to AGS conclave. I will not discuss the contents of our conversation because this company knows I am a man of my word and not once broke integrity with that company when I did business with them. Why don''t you go check your resource before you stick your foot deeper into your mouth.

To anyone who is attempting to follow along in this thread my deepest apologies as most of what has been published in this last page of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with a Hearts pattern, how it came to be called a Hearts pattern, my opinion of grading them etc. I will answer Garry and if the professional''s and consumers who have/are participating would like to continue the discussion I would most certainly like to express my opinion and and work towards resolving the issues that have been identified in the previous pages of this thread.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[arjunajane]

From a consumers' POV, I actually understand and sympathize with both sides of this argument.
Without re-hashing too much, I agree that the average consumer to skim across the PS hearts tutorial with rudimentary knowledge will have difficulty separating the issue of patterning from actual performance. Sad, but often true.

Therefore, imho the most significant thing to come out of this thread is John P's suggestion (and Serg's elaboration) of a minor re-writing of some of the wording of the PS hearts tutorial.

I agree that the originators and developers of the H&A standard deserve recognition. But also, in the spirit of education, if what Strm, Rhino, AGC argue is infact true, not updating the tutorial may be detrimental.

Of course, the only people who can decide this is PS mods/creators, to which I second the suggestion that Jon (if has not already) lobby them directly.
just my 0.02 of course.

 

[adamasgem]

Rhino Regarding painted halves, please reread https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-ex-the-consumers-perspective-and-the-technologies.41629/ where you were beating the mantra drums of GIA. And remember there was more than one company producing them (painted halves).

Also remember that I might have knowledge of more than you think about 2006.

As to selling longer LGF stones as classic H&A''s, I guess they are not, whether you disagree or not.

So sell them for what they are, well cut stones, not what they are not, classic H&A''s.

Try not to shoot the messenger...

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/5/2008 12:47:46 PM
Author: arjunajane

I agree that the originators and developers of the H&A standard deserve recognition. But also, in the spirit of education, if what Strm, Rhino, AGC argue is infact true, not updating the tutorial may be detrimental.

Better yet.. they can write their own tutorial on what their stones are, and are not.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/3/2008 8:35:17 PM
Author: Rhino

Why not lobby for those items to be reworded? Keep the tutorial’s information on how to create what the world knows as traditional “hearts and arrows” patterns intact. Instead of rewriting history, let’s just clear up any misunderstandings.

Otherwise, you’re trying to force Pricescope to disagree with the following:

The original, historic Japanese definitions
The parameters of the first labs to evaluate the H&A pattern
The H&A criteria of the world’s major labs who grade them
The H&A criteria of the world's current largest seller of branded H&A diamonds (HOF)
The H&A tutorial of the world’s current largest online seller of diamonds (BN)
The H&A tutorial of the world's current most trafficked diamond information site (PS)
(others not at the top of my mind)

A rewording that clears up potential confusion but keeps Pricescope’s accurate historical information intact seems a reasonable solution.

Personally John ...

a. I can't recall Japan's.
b. I could give a rats behind about HOF. Not every HOF I've appraised has top optical symmetry.
c. Those labs who do grade for H&A that I've personally inspected has been nothing to brag about. Wink has seen IGI H&A's too and knows what I'm talking about.
c. BlueNile?!?!?

COUGH
d. PS ... while I love PS, PS is not a gemological authority of any kind.

I say we discuss it here openly and amongst peers. Firstly I do like your wording ... 'traditional Hearts & Arrows' pattern. It doesn't imply other patterns are inferior or not another type of Hearts pattern which is the truth.

I understand you may not remember or agree with the above, but I think we must recognize origins, successful models and widely-used definitions to move forward...otherwise how can we expect others to recognize and accept ours?

I like "traditional" too. Framing the current information that way implies respect without diminishing or elevating its significance.

A rewording that clears up potential confusion but keeps Pricescope’s accurate historical information intact seems a reasonable solution.

Agreed. Absolutely.

Excellent. I hope this will allow everyone to move forward.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/5/2008 1:34:36 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/5/2008 12:47:46 PM

Author: arjunajane


I agree that the originators and developers of the H&A standard deserve recognition. But also, in the spirit of education, if what Strm, Rhino, AGC argue is infact true, not updating the tutorial may be detrimental.

Better yet.. they can write their own tutorial on what their stones are, and are not.

I don't sell diamonds and if I did they wouldn't likely be rounds so I have no stake or interest in the marketing side of H&A.
My interest is in the technical and performance side.

Is the current tutorial technically incorrect by saying for all combinations of angles that any lgf% outside of 76-80 is bad(fails)?
My answer is yes it is!

Is the current tutorial technically incorrect in saying optical symmetry is important?
My answer is no it isn't.

As for writing a tutorial on it I feel my time is better spent writing about step cuts as there is very little factual information out there on them.
I have done a ton of research on them and feel my meager writing talents are better spent passing that on and getting peer review.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/5/2008 12:47:46 PM
Author: arjunajane

From a consumers' POV, I actually understand and sympathize with both sides of this argument. Without re-hashing too much, I agree that the average consumer to skim across the PS hearts tutorial with rudimentary knowledge will have difficulty separating the issue of patterning from actual performance. Sad, but often true.

Therefore, imho the most significant thing to come out of this thread is John P's suggestion (and Serg's elaboration) of a minor re-writing of some of the wording of the PS hearts tutorial.

I agree that the originators and developers of the H&A standard deserve recognition. But also, in the spirit of education, if what Strm, Rhino, AGC argue is infact true, not updating the tutorial may be detrimental.

Of course, the only people who can decide this is PS mods/creators, to which I second the suggestion that Jon (if has not already) lobby them directly.
just my 0.02 of course.

Ooh look. A consumer!

You realize this kind of nano-tech quark-theory thread is the cut geek's version of Diamond Hangout, right?

Nice post, and I hope so too - so we can all get back to answering questions about proportions and feathers and stuff.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/5/2008 2:06:28 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 8/3/2008 8:35:17 PM
Author: Rhino

Why not lobby for those items to be reworded? Keep the tutorial’s information on how to create what the world knows as traditional “hearts and arrows” patterns intact. Instead of rewriting history, let’s just clear up any misunderstandings.

Otherwise, you’re trying to force Pricescope to disagree with the following:

The original, historic Japanese definitions
The parameters of the first labs to evaluate the H&A pattern
The H&A criteria of the world’s major labs who grade them
The H&A criteria of the world''s current largest seller of branded H&A diamonds (HOF)
The H&A tutorial of the world’s current largest online seller of diamonds (BN)
The H&A tutorial of the world''s current most trafficked diamond information site (PS)
(others not at the top of my mind)

A rewording that clears up potential confusion but keeps Pricescope’s accurate historical information intact seems a reasonable solution.

Personally John ...

a. I can''t recall Japan''s.
b. I could give a rats behind about HOF. Not every HOF I''ve appraised has top optical symmetry.
c. Those labs who do grade for H&A that I''ve personally inspected has been nothing to brag about. Wink has seen IGI H&A''s too and knows what I''m talking about.
c. BlueNile?!?!?

COUGH
d. PS ... while I love PS, PS is not a gemological authority of any kind.

I say we discuss it here openly and amongst peers. Firstly I do like your wording ... ''traditional Hearts & Arrows'' pattern. It doesn''t imply other patterns are inferior or not another type of Hearts pattern which is the truth.

I understand you may not remember or agree with the above, but I think we must recognize origins, successful models and widely-used definitions to move forward...otherwise how can we expect others to recognize and accept ours?

I like ''traditional'' too. Framing the current information that way implies respect without diminishing or elevating its significance.

A rewording that clears up potential confusion but keeps Pricescope’s accurate historical information intact seems a reasonable solution.

Agreed. Absolutely.

Excellent. I hope this will allow everyone to move forward.

Agreed and I would like to begin with the subject of origins and pose a question to you my friend.

Are you familiar with why a Heart on a diamond is called a Heart in the first place? Please share and then I would also like to share with you my understanding and perspective on this issue.

Kind regards,

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/5/2008 2:08:22 PM
Author: strmrdr


Is the current tutorial technically incorrect by saying for all combinations of angles that any lgf% outside of 76-80 is bad(fails)?
My answer is yes it is!

Storm: How can it be wrong (technically incorrect) when all it (the tutorial) is saying is that it "fails" the "established H&A" patterning criteria?

The same longer LGF stones "may" give different, or even better or possibly worse, specific performance attributes, then those that fit within the classic mold of H&A''s, but that is for the proponents of a re-definition to show, and then to rename their product, something other than classic "H&A''s", a name type or patterning and marketing class (which shows symmetry), that everyone now wants to use, whether their stones meet the "criteria", however ill defined, or not.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/5/2008 12:47:46 PM
Author: arjunajane
From a consumers'' POV, I actually understand and sympathize with both sides of this argument.
Without re-hashing too much, I agree that the average consumer to skim across the PS hearts tutorial with rudimentary knowledge will have difficulty separating the issue of patterning from actual performance. Sad, but often true.

Therefore, imho the most significant thing to come out of this thread is John P''s suggestion (and Serg''s elaboration) of a minor re-writing of some of the wording of the PS hearts tutorial.

I agree that the originators and developers of the H&A standard deserve recognition. But also, in the spirit of education, if what Strm, Rhino, AGC argue is infact true, not updating the tutorial may be detrimental.

Of course, the only people who can decide this is PS mods/creators, to which I second the suggestion that Jon (if has not already) lobby them directly.
just my 0.02 of course.

Amen arjuna.

As someone who''s been doing this for a notable time and an educator on the subject I make it my goal to be as clear, concise and unambiguous as possible guided by the principals of truth and integrity in the information I am reporting. I''ve made changes to my own site when errors have been pointed out over the course of time ... nobody''s perfect. When I, over a period of time consistently receive the same questions via email and learn of their source it gets tiresome to answer the same question over and over hence I am happy they are being discussed.

Andrey has expressed his concern to maintain truth and integrity about the information that is gained via this site which is why constructively moving forward is a good thing. It feels good to engage with those who are interested in talking real gemology and learning from one another. It reminds me of older days here on this forum when I used to participate a lot more often.

Warm regards,

 

[John P]

Date: 8/5/2008 2:50:46 PM
Author: Rhino

Agreed and I would like to begin with the subject of origins and pose a question to you my friend.

Are you familiar with why a Heart on a diamond is called a Heart in the first place? Please share and then I would also like to share with you my understanding and perspective on this issue.

Kind regards,

I have learned the most from mentors generations-deep in diamond cutting practice and lore (diamond dust in their blood and all that) and have run across a lot of symbolic origins; some of which I already described in a pretty long post, here.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/true-hearts-is-this-stone-a-true-heart.90360/page-4

The above may or may not be in-line with what you're asking. I'm always interested in hearing more; even diamond urban legends...or scary campfire stories like the crazy diamond cutter with a rotary saw for a hand who escaped from the psycho ward.

 

[diagem]

Wasnt it a Japanese Lab called ''Zenokhio'' the first to use the H&A term?

 

[John P]

I believe you're thinking of Zenhokyo DG. Another well-known Japanese lab is CGL.

A Japanese company named Apollon 8 was selling Eightstar knock-offs in the late 80s but not doing well at it. A company salesman named Yamashita purchased the remaining diamonds, preserved the company's contacts, reconfigured/renamed the cut "Hearts & Arrows" and patented the H&A viewer in 1990. Technically, there was a predecessor to H&A diamonds from the mid-80s called the "Heart and Cupid" diamond (the first were produced by the Eightstar company) but Eightstar prefers to separate themselves from the "Hearts & Arrows" niche, so Apollon 8 is generally recognized as the first to specialize in H&A - and Yamashita copyrighted the term.