True Hearts - Technical discussion

[Rhino]

From Yamashita....

A photograph is attached to a written statement (see below illustration) of an expert opinion on a diamond. "This photograph is taken by a camera placed above the diamond while illuminating it from below. In the produced fringes, the brightest and least bright portions appear black to the naked eye, while the other portions appear whitish. This photograph has the following disadvantages.

(1) Those portions which should appear brightest are black like in a negative film of a black-and-white photograph.

(2) Those portions which should be brightest and those portions which are least bright are equally black in the resulting image. Therefore, it is completely impossible to know which portions are really bright.

(3) The white portions in the photograph should have contain portions of varied degrees of brightness. However, these varied degrees of brightness produce little changes in the density in this photograph. Hence, almost no difference in brightness can be seen in the white portions. This also totally deprives the fringes of three-dimensionality.

In this way, this photograph is very difficult for laymen to understand though this situation may not apply to experts.

Yamashita goes to explain that his invention will limit light entry into the diamond from 20° to 50° and that will tell the observer more about the diamond. “In any case, it is important that a gem of interest be placed inside the container such that light enters it from only the directions lying within the range of angles of 20 to 50 degrees about the line vertical to the gem. In other words, the fringes of interest can be clearly seen only if the gem is placed in the container satisfying these conditions and if the gem is observed or photographed while positively directing the light into the container.”

While this image is perhaps one of the first recorded of an actual Hearts image, again the focus appears to be centered around interpreting the meaning of the face up image. Not necessarily the preciseness of the pattern but the translation of the white and blacks. Of course later research discovered clearly what these were.

More....

 

[adamasgem]

style="WIDTH: 99%; HEIGHT: 550px">Date: 8/6/2008 5:18:10 PM
Author: Rhino


From Yamashita....

A photograph is attached to a written statement (see below illustration) of an expert opinion on a diamond. 'This photograph is taken by a camera placed above the diamond while illuminating it from below. In the produced fringes, the brightest and least bright portions appear black to the naked eye, while the other portions appear whitish. This photograph has the following disadvantages.

(1) Those portions which should appear brightest are black like in a negative film of a black-and-white photograph.

(2) Those portions which should be brightest and those portions which are least bright are equally black in the resulting image. Therefore, it is completely impossible to know which portions are really bright.

(3) The white portions in the photograph should have contain portions of varied degrees of brightness. However, these varied degrees of brightness produce little changes in the density in this photograph. Hence, almost no difference in brightness can be seen in the white portions. This also totally deprives the fringes of three-dimensionality.

In this way, this photograph is very difficult for laymen to understand though this situation may not apply to experts.

Yamashita goes to explain that his invention will limit light entry into the diamond from 20° to 50° and that will tell the observer more about the diamond. “In any case, it is important that a gem of interest be placed inside the container such that light enters it from only the directions lying within the range of angles of 20 to 50 degrees about the line vertical to the gem. In other words, the fringes of interest can be clearly seen only if the gem is placed in the container satisfying these conditions and if the gem is observed or photographed while positively directing the light into the container.”

While this image is perhaps one of the first recorded of an actual Hearts image, again the focus appears to be centered around interpreting the meaning of the face up image. Not necessarily the preciseness of the pattern but the translation of the white and blacks. Of course later research discovered clearly what these were.

More....

Rhino... why don't you just post the source, Yamashita's US patent 5260763

You can get a free pdf from http://www.freepatentsonline.com

Attribution is always in good taste Rhino..

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/6/2008 5:31:24 PM
Author: adamasgem

Rhino... why don''t you just post the source, Yamashita''s US patent 5260763

You can get a free pdf from http://www.freepatentsonline.com

Attribution is always in good taste Rhino..

I agree Marty, Rhino please attribute documents correctly

Here is the best US patent search tool
http://www.google.com/patents?id=qgooAAAAEBAJ&dq=5260763

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/6/2008 4:49:56 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Consumers there has been a re-write under way for a few days.

Thanks Garry and others who are working on it.

 

[Rhino]

Thanks for providing that link Marty. I wasn't intentionally trying to avoid giving credit where its due.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/6/2008 4:44:08 PM
Author: Rhino
Hey senor John,

Reading and just some questions...

Precision-patterning was a goal, as much as performance in the Firescope. It's what resulted in the 'eight stars.' And though Eightstar never touted the pavilion cutting the examples I've seen have fine optical symmetry. It's no surprise that Yamashita said to himself 'hey self...I can buy this inventory and show off the crown AND pavilion...it will be a new identity.'

Interesting. Where in fact did Yamashita say this?

It's well-known that he used Apollon 8s failure to succeed as an Eighstar clone to purchase the remaining stock, recut it in come cases and re-introduced it to the market as "H&A" showing both pavilion and crown precision. I'm paraphrasing of course (I don't speak Japanese in any event) but this is my understanding from those closer to the situation, and it's certainly in-step with his ensuing patents. The popular H&A movement is further tribute to the success of the plan.

...While this diamond no doubt would be a beauty it is not one that would qualify, at least in my book as a superior grade for Optical Symmetry. There is evidence of lower halves that vary too much not to mention the black star itself. I'm not saying this would represent 8* cutting in the mid 80's as I'm confident there was a higher level of optical precision. Wink ... it'd be interesting to see if you can acquire a FireScope image of a mid 1980's EightStar if you could...

Maybe Dana from Eightstar would provide such an image.

I have seen this JDM material before. Sort of a dodgy image from a company that produced the Firescope, yes? It could simply be that optical symmetry was so very young, or it could be that Eightstar wanted such precision limited to images of their brand and arranged that JDM would use something inferior (?) Either way I always find that "black star" image to be a reminder of days when OS was unknown to the public.

Next some comments I have from Yamashita that are interesting and what I believe is the very first 'Hearts' picture ever recorded. ...

(graphics acquired from Al Gilbertson while he was conducting research on this subject, thanks Al.

Those are from Yamashita's US patent, circa 1990. I don't know that they are the first such pictures, as I believe Eightstar - or someone who worked with them - has research images of pavilions from the older "Heart and Cupid" days.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/6/2008 5:31:24 PM
Author: adamasgem

You can get a free pdf from http://www.freepatentsonline.com

I was sharing this with a fellow pro who emailed me, so I happen to have it loaded. Anyone without a freepatents login ID can access it here (if it's not bad form to share this way).

http://www.table55.com/main/yamashita.pdf

I've always had an interest in seeing how Kobayashi's patent differs, if anyone has it. I have not taken time to research it - though if we use Ira's logic we should look for a "heartburn & arrows" viewer.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/5/2008 7:35:54 PM
Author: adamasgem


But they all supposedly can yield an acceptable ''ultimate'' heart pattern in a ficticious, ill defined viewer. Yamashitas original patent for the viewer (US5196966) asked for light with a whole angle where light enters from 20 to 50 degrees, followed by US5260763 with the same specs, I believe.

Now somehow, with the plethora of (possibly illegal) viewers on the market, which probably all are in patent violation (17 to 20 year term), HRD stated that these viewers had angles of 8.4 to 11.0 for the low end to 29.0 to 34 on the high end and I haven''t the foggiest how that evolved. (Anyone?) Anyways HRD supposedly, from what I have read, stabilized on 10.6 to 32.6 degrees. What the original Japanese were using is anyones'' guess, and they all seem to neglect the size of the stone with respect to the viewer.

You are all dodging or else trying to confuse the issue.
H&A''s were defined by the Japanese and Brian did a good job in illustrating it.
I don''t think the PS tutorial has to be changed other than to provide a preface linking the lack of information on the specific H&A patterning to performance, and let the chips fall where they may.

And prior to all that, one has to determine what viewer model (and reference diamond size) did the Japanese use to define the classic H&A and its allowable variants, since HRD seems confused and gives seriously different angles from what appeared in Yamashitas patent for illumination models.

Otherwise you are all spinning your marketing driven wheels.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/6/2008 6:33:25 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/5/2008 7:35:54 PM
Author: adamasgem


But they all supposedly can yield an acceptable ''ultimate'' heart pattern in a ficticious, ill defined viewer. Yamashitas original patent for the viewer (US5196966) asked for light with a whole angle where light enters from 20 to 50 degrees, followed by US5260763 with the same specs, I believe.

Now somehow, with the plethora of (possibly illegal) viewers on the market, which probably all are in patent violation (17 to 20 year term), HRD stated that these viewers had angles of 8.4 to 11.0 for the low end to 29.0 to 34 on the high end and I haven''t the foggiest how that evolved. (Anyone?) Anyways HRD supposedly, from what I have read, stabilized on 10.6 to 32.6 degrees. What the original Japanese were using is anyones'' guess, and they all seem to neglect the size of the stone with respect to the viewer.

You are all dodging or else trying to confuse the issue.
H&A''s were defined by the Japanese and Brian did a good job in illustrating it.
I don''t think the PS tutorial has to be changed other than to provide a preface linking the lack of information on the specific H&A patterning to performance, and let the chips fall where they may.

And prior to all that, one has to determine what viewer model (and reference diamond size) did the Japanese use to define the classic H&A and its allowable variants, since HRD seems confused and gives seriously different angles from what appeared in Yamashitas patent for illumination models.

Otherwise you are all spinning your marketing driven wheels.

Oh you''re just angry that we haven''t given you a good GIA bone to chew on here, mister wheely-spinner.

Yeah we''re birdwalking, but it''s because there''s consensus and an adjustment is in-progress. If you look for "consensus" in your dictionary it will be in that dusty, unused portion.

Meanwhile, please do create an avatar for yourself that includes the non-visible colors as well as the visible spectrum and post it up for us, will you?

(that should keep him busy for a while)

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 8/6/2008 6:14:33 PM
Author: Rhino
Thanks for providing that link Marty. I wasn''t intentionally trying to avoid giving credit where its due.

Clearly you were not. You started the paragraph with "From Yamashita...." which for anyone with eyes to read would be obvious.

Marty appears to have an ax to grind

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/6/2008 6:54:37 PM
Author: John Pollard

Oh you''re just angry that we haven''t given you a good GIA bone to chew on here, mister wheely-spinner.

Yeah we''re birdwalking, but it''s because there''s consensus and an adjustment is in-progress. If you look for ''consensus'' in your dictionary it will be in that dusty, unused portion.

Meanwhile, please do create an avatar for yourself that includes the non-visible colors as well as the visible spectrum and post it up for us, will you?

(that should keep him busy for a while)

Does visible spectrum have anything to do with hair color, or lack thereoff?

 

[agc]

Date: 8/6/2008 6:33:25 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/5/2008 7:35:54 PM
Author: adamasgem


But they all supposedly can yield an acceptable ''ultimate'' heart pattern in a ficticious, ill defined viewer. Yamashitas original patent for the viewer (US5196966) asked for light with a whole angle where light enters from 20 to 50 degrees, followed by US5260763 with the same specs, I believe.

Now somehow, with the plethora of (possibly illegal) viewers on the market, which probably all are in patent violation (17 to 20 year term), HRD stated that these viewers had angles of 8.4 to 11.0 for the low end to 29.0 to 34 on the high end and I haven''t the foggiest how that evolved. (Anyone?) Anyways HRD supposedly, from what I have read, stabilized on 10.6 to 32.6 degrees. What the original Japanese were using is anyones'' guess, and they all seem to neglect the size of the stone with respect to the viewer.

You are all dodging or else trying to confuse the issue.
H&A''s were defined by the Japanese and Brian did a good job in illustrating it.
I don''t think the PS tutorial has to be changed other than to provide a preface linking the lack of information on the specific H&A patterning to performance, and let the chips fall where they may.

And prior to all that, one has to determine what viewer model (and reference diamond size) did the Japanese use to define the classic H&A and its allowable variants, since HRD seems confused and gives seriously different angles from what appeared in Yamashitas patent for illumination models.

Otherwise you are all spinning your marketing driven wheels.

I don''t agree with the let the chips fall where they may theory. This tutorial is meant for the education of consumers. To put it simply, I don''t want to see history rewritten about H&A''s I just want the tutorial to tell the whole story so consumers can walk away with the knowledge they need to make intelligent decisions/purchases. Leave the biased statements (intentional or unintentional) to the marketers and not the educational tutorials. I think a tutorial on optical symmetry would truely benefit consumers as most do not understand GIA/AGS graded symmetry vs. optical symmetry vs patterning vs performance.

 

[adamasgem]

'

Date: 8/6/2008 6:54:37 PM
Author: John Pollard

Yeah we're birdwalking, but it's because there's consensus and an adjustment is in-progress. If you look for 'consensus' in your dictionary it will be in that dusty, unused portion.

Anytime I hear the word "consensus", I cringe from the consumers viewpoint.

 

[adamasgem]

'

Date: 8/6/2008 7:17:15 PM
Author: agc
I don't agree with the let the chips fall where they may theory. This tutorial is meant for the education of consumers. To put it simply, I don't want to see history rewritten about H&A's I just want the tutorial to tell the whole story so consumers can walk away with the knowledge they need to make intelligent decisions/purchases. Leave the biased statements (intentional or unintentional) to the marketers and not the educational tutorials. I think a tutorial on optical symmetry would truely benefit consumers as most do not understand GIA/AGS graded symmetry vs. optical symmetry vs patterning vs performance.

AGC.. I don't think you understand the amount of work it would be to link pattern to performance.

Since I don't sell stones, I would be very happy to take some of the cutters and sellers profit and apply it to my bread and butter, by generating the myriad of STL files necessary to do what you want, or else they can do it themselves. All they have to do is send money, which I really doubt they will do, because once the information is published, it is there for all their competition to use. And that is being realistic about the ethics of the industry.

The tutorial, as it exists, deliniates what was thought to be the Japanese standard for cutting a particular pattern class of diamonds, which they marketed under the terminology "H&A", nothing more, nothing less.

I will say one thing, for a specific parameter set, it seems, to me at least, that the better the optical symmetry, the better the overall performance, and H&A patterning is one of possibly many which yield better overall performance; butalso remember ther is a mysterious optimal point out there, which no one has yet to define (probably because we haven't reached agreement on the lighting conditions to define it from).

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Regarding patterns and pattern recognition this might be interesting
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F4783829

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/6/2008 7:17:15 PM
Author: agc

Date: 8/6/2008 6:33:25 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/5/2008 7:35:54 PM
Author: adamasgem


But they all supposedly can yield an acceptable ''ultimate'' heart pattern in a ficticious, ill defined viewer. Yamashitas original patent for the viewer (US5196966) asked for light with a whole angle where light enters from 20 to 50 degrees, followed by US5260763 with the same specs, I believe.

Now somehow, with the plethora of (possibly illegal) viewers on the market, which probably all are in patent violation (17 to 20 year term), HRD stated that these viewers had angles of 8.4 to 11.0 for the low end to 29.0 to 34 on the high end and I haven''t the foggiest how that evolved. (Anyone?) Anyways HRD supposedly, from what I have read, stabilized on 10.6 to 32.6 degrees. What the original Japanese were using is anyones'' guess, and they all seem to neglect the size of the stone with respect to the viewer.

You are all dodging or else trying to confuse the issue.
H&A''s were defined by the Japanese and Brian did a good job in illustrating it.
I don''t think the PS tutorial has to be changed other than to provide a preface linking the lack of information on the specific H&A patterning to performance, and let the chips fall where they may.

And prior to all that, one has to determine what viewer model (and reference diamond size) did the Japanese use to define the classic H&A and its allowable variants, since HRD seems confused and gives seriously different angles from what appeared in Yamashitas patent for illumination models.

Otherwise you are all spinning your marketing driven wheels.

I don''t agree with the let the chips fall where they may theory. This tutorial is meant for the education of consumers. To put it simply, I don''t want to see history rewritten about H&A''s I just want the tutorial to tell the whole story so consumers can walk away with the knowledge they need to make intelligent decisions/purchases. Leave the biased statements (intentional or unintentional) to the marketers and not the educational tutorials. I think a tutorial on optical symmetry would truely benefit consumers as most do not understand GIA/AGS graded symmetry vs. optical symmetry vs patterning vs performance.

I can agree with you that there is a need to write another tutorial about the other patterns that also have top performance, but I think Jonathon is now fighting the problem of H&A patterning having assumed the position of preeminence in the mind of the consumer.

Let me illustrate his position by telling the story of a certain company in the beer business in Milwaukee many years ago, back when I was a mere child, or possibly even before I was born, I do not remember the dates, but it was a much studied marketing tale back in the days when I was in college and since I am now 61 you can imagine it was a day or three ago.

This brewing company, a minor player even in Milwaukee decided they wanted to grow so they hired an advertising agency. The agency came in and learned all about how the beer was made, how the water was drawn from deep artisian wells, even though the brewery could have just taken its water from one of the Great Lakes.

They learned all about the way the hops were prepared and how the water was filtered dozens of times and how this and that were done for one reason or another and they wanted to build a campaign about it.

The company objected, telling the ad agency that this is what every one did. The agency replied that they did not know this, and neither did the clients of the brewing company.

The ads were run and the campaign was a success and the brewery quickly became number one in Milwaukee and one of the biggest in the nation. The other brewers all tried to say that they did this too, and every one yawned and thuoght, well, of course they do, they have to now that the standard has been set. The brewery had completely taken over the position of being all about the water, even though they did not necessarily do anything that the others were not already doing, only they were the first to tell their clients that they were doing it.

Hearts on Fire has the preeminent position in the mind of most consumers when it comes to cutting the H&A cut diamonds, due to their large advertising budget and the fact that they were the first to make a big noise about bringing H&A cut diamonds to the states. Probably the biggest mistake made in this whole arena is the fact that the Japanese company with the H&A trademark in Japan did not also file for it here in the States as then it would be MUCH more difficult to have this discussion without violating the trademark.

Now, many of the public have become aware that H&A does not mean HoF although that would not have happened so quickly were they not so expensive. Still, it took years for this to begin to happen, and it is still in the process of becoming well known.

Jonathon, it will take you years, many of them, and hard work, to get to where you want to be with the public having a clue that there even are other patterns, let alone top performing patterns. Your patterns could even be better, and it would not make much difference to most people, because in their minds H&A are the best. This is the disadvantage of being behind the preeminent party in the market.

I acknowledge that your stones are probably beautiful and probably are top light performers, but you are fighting an uphill battle for the mind of the consumer. It is a noble fight and one I can empathise with, but I also recognize that it will be a long fight and it will be years before any but the most ardent cut enthusiasts know much about those other patterns.

Wink

 

[agc]

Date: 8/6/2008 8:11:15 PM
Author: adamasgem
''

Date: 8/6/2008 7:17:15 PM
Author: agc
I don''t agree with the let the chips fall where they may theory. This tutorial is meant for the education of consumers. To put it simply, I don''t want to see history rewritten about H&A''s I just want the tutorial to tell the whole story so consumers can walk away with the knowledge they need to make intelligent decisions/purchases. Leave the biased statements (intentional or unintentional) to the marketers and not the educational tutorials. I think a tutorial on optical symmetry would truely benefit consumers as most do not understand GIA/AGS graded symmetry vs. optical symmetry vs patterning vs performance.

AGC.. I don''t think you understand the amount of work it would be to link pattern to performance.

Since I don''t sell stones, I would be very happy to take some of the cutters and sellers profit and apply it to my bread and butter, by generating the myriad of STL files necessary to do what you want, or else they can do it themselves. All they have to do is send money, which I really doubt they will do, because once the information is published, it is there for all their competition to use. And that is being realistic about the ethics of the industry.

The tutorial, as it exists, deliniates what was thought to be the Japanese standard for cutting a particular pattern class of diamonds, which they marketed under the terminology ''H&A'', nothing more, nothing less.

I will say one thing, for a specific parameter set, it seems, to me at least, that the better the optical symmetry, the better the overall performance, and H&A patterning is one of possibly many which yield better overall performance; butalso remember ther is a mysterious optimal point out there, which no one has yet to define (probably because we haven''t reached agreement on the lighting conditions to define it from).

Marty,
I''m not trying to link patterning with performance(although I would love to see it) and I realize what an undertaking that would be. I''m simplying saying explain to the consumer in simple terms what patterning is, what optical symmetry is , what AGS/GIA graded symmetry is, and what light performance is.(this does not have to be all in one tutorial) I don''t think the H&A tutorial even mentions this is the Japanese standard and that this is a patterning issue not a direct performance indicator(yet feel most consumers read it as a performance issue/ultimate in diamonds due to the wording) Note that little phrases like this "The lack of optical symmetry will be seen very clearly when viewing the diamond through the Hearts and Arrows viewer. It is easier to camouflage errors in the formation of the arrows, but it is impossible to hide any inconsistencies in the heart pattern" then it later shows clefted hearts and says "FAILS". This suggests that all clefted hearts lack optical symmetry and are not on par with the true H&A for optical symmetry not just patterning. Doesn''t a diamond with perfectly symmetric clefted hearts and balanced V''s/arrowheads not have a high degree optical symmetry but simply fail on Japanese standards for patterning? (consumers can walk away with the wrong impression due to their lack of knowledge and this type of wording) This is not the same as diamonds with missing hearts, variable sized hearts, variable V''s which not only fail patterning but also lack in optical symmetry and are not in the same class as true H&A''s or the example of the symmetric clefted hearts diamond. I am in no way against true H&A''s as I own some and think they are incredible. I also own perfectly symmetric clefted hearts that also are incredible. I am a strong believer in optical symmetry and personally look for the tightest cut diamonds I can find but certainly also use my eyes to judge their beauty in the end.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Wink,

While I am collecting some graphics to illustrate some points and praying for the correct and simple formation of words to clearly demonstrate my convictions on this issue, I do appreciate both your analogy and your empathy towards my position. That wouldn''t happen to be the brewery where Laverne and Shirley worked now would it?

Yes I do realize it is an uphill battle but when battles are fought with the guiding principals of truth, honesty, integrity and common sense behind me I see it as one worth fighting no matter how long it takes. The best way I can think of is education and the integrity, clarity and conciseness of the information being put forth as there are quite a number of "myths" that are taught to the consumer as "truth" that do nothing but confuse the masses who take in that information.

Take the myths we are fighting that have been espoused as truth to the consumer regarding the issue of fluoroescence. An uphill battle we all face. I am happy to report that many consumers are properly educated on that subject here, our site, and most importantly labs like GIA who have conducted in depth studies to make more people aware of the facts behind this myth.

As you are also aware the greater majority of my inventory does consist of traditional patterning H&A''s that safely meet the guidelines put out by those Japanese labs. What is discouraging is when I see people base what they believe is an "educated decision" to reject a perfectly rare and beautiful diamond because of misleading information has been injected into their mind concerning different patterns and what is to be garnered from those patterns. I like thinking outside of the box and exploring other options that are equally beautiful. In my professional opinion, to reward one type of pattern over another when both are showing the same gemological information (ie. precision of cut as demonstrated through Optical Symmetry) is what I consider an example of thinking inside the box because there are many patterns, not just on the pavilion but also through the crown that many people love and enjoy equally if not moreso than the pattern produced in precision 57 facet round H&A''s. My own daughter and her new husband, when giving them an in depth presentation and showing them the various patterns and how they translated to face up appearance enjoyed an optical design I would have never dreamed they would pick. A very precisely cut modified round with more than 57 facets! I thank God for those people who think outside the box, even of 57 facets and I don''t think their products should be discriminated by any grading system because they don''t fall into a specific particular pattern especially if it cut equally as precise.

In any case I just wanted to express my thanks.

Kind regards,

 

[Richard Sherwood]

When do we break for beer?


Rich, Independent GG Appraiser
Sarasota Gemological Laboratory

 

[agc]

Just to give an example of consumer confusion over an arrows pattern seen in an idealscope image and lab graded symmetry vs. optical symmetry look at this just posted thread https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/question-idealscope.91994/

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/6/2008 9:59:18 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
When do we break for beer?


Rich, Independent GG Appraiser
Sarasota Gemological Laboratory

Right about now Rich.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/6/2008 10:11:39 PM
Author: agc
Just to give an example of consumer confusion over an arrows pattern seen in an idealscope image and lab graded symmetry vs. optical symmetry look at this just posted thread https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/question-idealscope.91994/

AGC I think it is wrong to assume this person has even read the tutorials at all. However I do agree and the tutorial will be adjusted to make most people happy and consumers clearly informed - we agree

BTW may I suggest you use spaces and paragraphs - your posts often have gems in them that are missed because a large block is hard to read.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/6/2008 5:50:19 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/6/2008 4:49:56 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Consumers there has been a re-write under way for a few days.

Thanks Garry and others who are working on it.

Ditto! good stuff

 

[agc]

Garry,


You are correct that I should not assume this person has read any of the tutorials. I was just trying to show general consumer confusion/misinfomation and hoping that PS could do an even better job than the already fantastic job it has been doing educatiing consumers.

I truely appreciate and applaud the effort/time and knowledge imparted by so many on this forum.

I will work on the spaces and paragraphs and hope I can make my posts more readable.

Thanks.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/6/2008 9:59:18 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
When do we break for beer?


Rich, Independent GG Appraiser
Sarasota Gemological Laboratory

lmao Rich

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/6/2008 9:59:18 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
When do we break for beer?



Rich, Independent GG Appraiser

Sarasota Gemological Laboratory

Right after my last post, where you been?

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/6/2008 9:19:38 PM
Author: agc

Date: 8/6/2008 8:11:15 PM
Author: adamasgem
''

Date: 8/6/2008 7:17:15 PM
Author: agc
I don''t agree with the let the chips fall where they may theory. This tutorial is meant for the education of consumers. To put it simply, I don''t want to see history rewritten about H&A''s I just want the tutorial to tell the whole story so consumers can walk away with the knowledge they need to make intelligent decisions/purchases. Leave the biased statements (intentional or unintentional) to the marketers and not the educational tutorials. I think a tutorial on optical symmetry would truely benefit consumers as most do not understand GIA/AGS graded symmetry vs. optical symmetry vs patterning vs performance.

AGC.. I don''t think you understand the amount of work it would be to link pattern to performance.

Since I don''t sell stones, I would be very happy to take some of the cutters and sellers profit and apply it to my bread and butter, by generating the myriad of STL files necessary to do what you want, or else they can do it themselves. All they have to do is send money, which I really doubt they will do, because once the information is published, it is there for all their competition to use. And that is being realistic about the ethics of the industry.

The tutorial, as it exists, deliniates what was thought to be the Japanese standard for cutting a particular pattern class of diamonds, which they marketed under the terminology ''H&A'', nothing more, nothing less.

I will say one thing, for a specific parameter set, it seems, to me at least, that the better the optical symmetry, the better the overall performance, and H&A patterning is one of possibly many which yield better overall performance; butalso remember ther is a mysterious optimal point out there, which no one has yet to define (probably because we haven''t reached agreement on the lighting conditions to define it from).

Marty,
I''m not trying to link patterning with performance(although I would love to see it) and I realize what an undertaking that would be. I''m simplying saying explain to the consumer in simple terms what patterning is, what optical symmetry is , what AGS/GIA graded symmetry is, and what light performance is.(this does not have to be all in one tutorial) I don''t think the H&A tutorial even mentions this is the Japanese standard and that this is a patterning issue not a direct performance indicator(yet feel most consumers read it as a performance issue/ultimate in diamonds due to the wording) Note that little phrases like this ''The lack of optical symmetry will be seen very clearly when viewing the diamond through the Hearts and Arrows viewer. It is easier to camouflage errors in the formation of the arrows, but it is impossible to hide any inconsistencies in the heart pattern'' then it later shows clefted hearts and says ''FAILS''. This suggests that all clefted hearts lack optical symmetry and are not on par with the true H&A for optical symmetry not just patterning. Doesn''t a diamond with perfectly symmetric clefted hearts and balanced V''s/arrowheads not have a high degree optical symmetry but simply fail on Japanese standards for patterning? (consumers can walk away with the wrong impression due to their lack of knowledge and this type of wording) This is not the same as diamonds with missing hearts, variable sized hearts, variable V''s which not only fail patterning but also lack in optical symmetry and are not in the same class as true H&A''s or the example of the symmetric clefted hearts diamond. I am in no way against true H&A''s as I own some and think they are incredible. I also own perfectly symmetric clefted hearts that also are incredible. I am a strong believer in optical symmetry and personally look for the tightest cut diamonds I can find but certainly also use my eyes to judge their beauty in the end.

re:what AGS/GIA graded symmetry is

Who knows? I am afraid what simple tutorial is not possible for AGS/GIA graded symmetry .

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/7/2008 1:52:53 AM
Author: Serg
re:what AGS/GIA graded symmetry is

Who knows? I am afraid what simple tutorial is not possible for AGS/GIA graded symmetry .

this table shows what Sergey means - if you read the pages above and below you will get the idea how each lab has its own rules, and unforutunately these rules are not transperant or published.
http://www.gemology.ru/cut/english/symmetry/5.htm

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 8/6/2008 7:21:36 PM
Author: adamasgem
''

Date: 8/6/2008 6:54:37 PM
Author: John Pollard

Yeah we''re birdwalking, but it''s because there''s consensus and an adjustment is in-progress. If you look for ''consensus'' in your dictionary it will be in that dusty, unused portion.

Anytime I hear the word ''consensus'', I cringe from the consumers viewpoint.

But you aren''t a consumer. Perhaps let the consumers decide for themselves what is cringe-worthy.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 8/6/2008 8:11:15 PM
Author: adamasgem

The tutorial, as it exists, deliniates what was thought to be the Japanese standard for cutting a particular pattern class of diamonds, which they marketed under the terminology 'H&A', nothing more, nothing less.

This is precisely the 'heart' of the matter (pun intended).

The tutorial says nothing about light performance. It says nothing about optical symmetry of other patterns. It's sole goal is to outline what constitutes a true Hearts and Arrows pattern as defined by the Japanese standard, as presented by Brian to the IDCC in 2004, and the perceived industry benchmark of H&A standards widely adopted/accepted by several leaders and appraisers in the industry.

That's all it is. As Marty said, nothing more and nothing less.

I have a tremendous appreciation for well-cut stones of other patterns. I own a beautiful princess cut stone that is just masterful in its precision......even though it's not an Hearts and Arrows stone.

Several of the gals here own drop-dead stunning OECs, which are beloved for their personality even though they may not exhibit the precision of optical symmetry that other cuts do.

Many of these folks have come to appreciate other patterns despite an overwhelming contingent here who 'preach the sermon' on traditional Tolk and their opinions of how it is 'the best', 'king', or any number of monikers.

If consumers come here to learn and they read thoroughly, there should be no 'misled'. If they come and give a half-hearted glance and don't pay attention to every fine detail....well, then they do that too. You cannot legislate how much any individual consumer chooses to understand information. Moreover, it's a disservice to those who DO want the information to dumb it down because some other party might not read carefully enough.

That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, and as noted, those are underway. But, the suggestion that we should 'protect' consumers from their own lack of willingness to read and comprehend at the expense of other consumers who might value the information is a stretch for me and doesn't feel like a logical solution.

ETA: It's been suggested several times already that those who really care about helping the consumer better understand could as easily write another article emphasizing other forms of optical symmetry and their potential benefits. It's easy to be concerned for the consumer until it comes to actually doing something about it; then somehow no one has the time, too busy, etc.

It's odd to me how no one 'has time' to support the cause they say they are championing (helping/educating consumers) by contributing supplemental materials about other fine examples of optical symmetry and other varieties of patterning....and yet they've spent four times that time/effort lobbying to stifle the submission of someone who actually DID invest his time to help educate consumers.