True Hearts - Technical discussion

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/7/2008 9:30:03 AM
Author: 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.

Allison, firstly thankyou for saying what you have in you last paragraph. I agree 110%.

Re the highlighted, can you please elaborate how this would be at the expense of others?
To be completely frank, I think you may have misunderstood the intention - at least the way I have understood it.
The consumers on this thread are lobbying for a More detailed/involved tutorial, not a dumbed down one.

cheers
AJ

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 8/7/2008 10:12:47 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 8/7/2008 9:30:03 AM
Author: Allison D.

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.

Re the highlighted, can you please elaborate how this would be at the expense of others?

To be completely frank, I think you may have misunderstood the intention - at least the way I have understood it.
The consumers on this thread are lobbying for a More detailed/involved tutorial, not a dumbed down one.

cheers
AJ

Sure, I''m happy to try and put it another way.

Pricescope is *not* a consumer protection site; that would be the BBB or JVC. Pricescope is a consumer education site. Here is what Pricescope is about (http://www.pricescope.com/about.asp)

Pricing information and comparison
Educational stuff
Some diamond tools
Reviews
Good people on the forum.

Pricescope''s ''buzz'' is people, their problems and experiences, conversations, spreading knowledge, theirs and
our desire to help each other and support fellow consumers.

Nowhere in that does it suggest that we are here to ''protect'' consumers or edit information because we think they aren''t bright enough to decide what information they should find helpful or smart enough to decide what information isn''t really pertinent to them.

In fact, Pricescope goes out of its way to discourage treating consumers as dumb customers here: "We recommend listening to people''s concerns first, and don''t ever talk down to them– they are engineers, doctors, lawyers and really smart people disguised as dumb customers."

This is the essence of Pricescope. The overwhelming majority of people who find Pricescope do so because they are *smart enough* to feed their intellectual curiosity by researching their purchase. They''ve likely already been exposed to tons of information (and sometimes misinformation) and have been smart enough to decide that information wasn''t really useful to them. Now they come here, and we''re going to suggest that doing the same here is somehow beyond their capabilities??

I believe if they were smart enough not to take information at face value locally, it''s an outright insult to suggest that they aren''t capable of handling and evaluating all the information that Pricescope has to offer and determining for themselves what things they deem important and what they don''t. By several admissions in these related threads, several of them have already successfully done so. Many have noted that despite an overwhelming and sometimes freakishly religious adherence to the cut/perfection sermon here, they''ve still been astute enough to make informed choices for other products that wouldn''t fall ''inside the lines'' for the cut-geeks.

The H&A tutorial isn''t there to tell everyone that they should only want a true H&A stone or that they are ''settling'' by selecting anything less. Not even close. It''s there to help those who do WANT a true Hearts and Arrows stone according to the classic definitions.

To suggest we shouldn''t offer that education/information to those who DO want it/find it pertinent because we don''t trust other VERY intelligent people (with high reading comprehension capabilities) to understand the scope of the tutorial is limited to H&A patterning *is* tantamount to withholding information at the expense of those who DO want to understand those benchmarks. We''d rather default to assuming that otherwise really smart people won''t be smart enough to pipe up and ask more questions if they are confused (even though others have been clearly able to do so), so let''s instead defile a body of work that was revered enough for presentation to industry leaders as a benchmark for standards of PATTERNING excellence.

I disagree with that. People who come to Pricescope are, for the most part, razor sharp. The way to offer MORE information is to write about OTHER fine patterning examples for the enrichment/education tutorials. The way to empower people with choices is to empower people with information about SEVERAL fine choices, not to call for surpressing information that others may find useful in the name of equity.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/7/2008 9:30:03 AM
Author: Allison D.

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.

Don''t worry I am, except its not going to be a exercise in marketing and hype like h&a.
Im going right to virtual facets and arming consumers who are interested enough in the journey to be able to begin designing diamonds themselves and take them to diamonds 2012 rather than outdated traditions like diamonds 1980.
Several allready have a pretty fair idea about them.
It shall be a fun road!

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/7/2008 8:40:47 AM
Author: 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.

My opinion is my opinion, if you don''t like it, you don''t have to agree with it, period.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/7/2008 11:45:32 AM
Author: strmrdr
Don''t worry I am, except its not going to be a exercise in marketing and hype like h&a.

Storm..

H&A isn''t all marketing and hype (and I have referred to it as such also), although that is the way it may have started out in Japan, a combination of precision and mysticisim with the hearts aspect.

It turned out that precision in cutting, exemplified by the H&A and similar classes of stones like Eightstars, actually created a revolution in precision cutting, which turned out to have some significant performance benefits.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/7/2008 12:50:09 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/7/2008 11:45:32 AM

Author: strmrdr

Don''t worry I am, except its not going to be a exercise in marketing and hype like h&a.

Storm..


H&A isn''t all marketing and hype (and I have referred to it as such also), although that is the way it may have started out in Japan, a combination of precision and mysticisim with the hearts aspect.


It turned out that precision in cutting, exemplified by the H&A and similar classes of stones like Eightstars, actually created a revolution in precision cutting, which turned out to have some significant performance benefits.

optical symmetry is important but h&a is a marketing and hype sideline of it.
The people here are smart enough to get precision in cutting and significant performance benefits without the hype if it is properly presented.
H&A is easy that''s why it makes for great marketing but the real world of optical symmetry is far beyond it.

I am not saying that H&A is bad just that its not the complete answer.

My belief is that the complete answer for every aspect of diamond performance is in the virtual facets and how they react to and interact with light.

 

[Allison D.]

I feel there is no singular ''complete answer''. To think so would be to imply that all consumers should prioritize the same wants and values.

There are several ''right'' answers, and which right answer applies to you (not you, Storm, but you each reader) depends on what your individual wants and values are.

What''s right for you (superior optical symmetry of a non-H&A variety) may not be what''s right for me (superior optical symmetry with the pattern of true H&A that I prefer). What right for us (precision optical symmetry) may not be right for someone else (willing to sacrifice some margin of optical precision to get larger stone, higher color, etc, etc.)

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/7/2008 11:40:42 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/7/2008 10:12:47 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 8/7/2008 9:30:03 AM
Author: Allison D.

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.

Re the highlighted, can you please elaborate how this would be at the expense of others?

To be completely frank, I think you may have misunderstood the intention - at least the way I have understood it.
The consumers on this thread are lobbying for a More detailed/involved tutorial, not a dumbed down one.

cheers
AJ

Sure, I'm happy to try and put it another way.

Pricescope is *not* a consumer protection site; that would be the BBB or JVC. Pricescope is a consumer education site. Here is what Pricescope is about (http://www.pricescope.com/about.asp)

Pricing information and comparison
Educational stuff
Some diamond tools
Reviews
Good people on the forum.

Pricescope's 'buzz' is people, their problems and experiences, conversations, spreading knowledge, theirs and
our desire to help each other and support fellow consumers.

Nowhere in that does it suggest that we are here to 'protect' consumers or edit information because we think they aren't bright enough to decide what information they should find helpful or smart enough to decide what information isn't really pertinent to them.

In fact, Pricescope goes out of its way to discourage treating consumers as dumb customers here: 'We recommend listening to people's concerns first, and don't ever talk down to them– they are engineers, doctors, lawyers and really smart people disguised as dumb customers.'

This is the essence of Pricescope. The overwhelming majority of people who find Pricescope do so because they are *smart enough* to feed their intellectual curiosity by researching their purchase. They've likely already been exposed to tons of information (and sometimes misinformation) and have been smart enough to decide that information wasn't really useful to them. Now they come here, and we're going to suggest that doing the same here is somehow beyond their capabilities??

I believe if they were smart enough not to take information at face value locally, it's an outright insult to suggest that they aren't capable of handling and evaluating all the information that Pricescope has to offer and determining for themselves what things they deem important and what they don't. By several admissions in these related threads, several of them have already successfully done so. Many have noted that despite an overwhelming and sometimes freakishly religious adherence to the cut/perfection sermon here, they've still been astute enough to make informed choices for other products that wouldn't fall 'inside the lines' for the cut-geeks.

The H&A tutorial isn't there to tell everyone that they should only want a true H&A stone or that they are 'settling' by selecting anything less. Not even close. It's there to help those who do WANT a true Hearts and Arrows stone according to the classic definitions.

To suggest we shouldn't offer that education/information to those who DO want it/find it pertinent because we don't trust other VERY intelligent people (with high reading comprehension capabilities) to understand the scope of the tutorial is limited to H&A patterning *is* tantamount to withholding information at the expense of those who DO want to understand those benchmarks. We'd rather default to assuming that otherwise really smart people won't be smart enough to pipe up and ask more questions if they are confused (even though others have been clearly able to do so), so let's instead defile a body of work that was revered enough for presentation to industry leaders as a benchmark for standards of PATTERNING excellence.

I disagree with that. People who come to Pricescope are, for the most part, razor sharp. The way to offer MORE information is to write about OTHER fine patterning examples for the enrichment/education tutorials. The way to empower people with choices is to empower people with information about SEVERAL fine choices, not to call for surpressing information that others may find useful in the name of equity.

Allison,

re:The H&A tutorial isn't there to tell everyone that they should only want a true H&A stone or that they are 'settling' by selecting anything less. Not even close. It's there to help those who do WANT a true Hearts and Arrows stone according to the classic definitions.

Yes PS H&A Brian Gavin tutorial is correct De Jure , BUT then same consumers go to

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds_info/t/all_about.aspx?articleid=24&zoneid=23



and read:

"
Optimal Light Return

Many diamonds are beautiful and all diamonds sparkle well in bright jewelry store lights. This is because the sheer volume of light returned to the eye overpowers any fine-tuning of the cut. 'A Cut Above' diamonds go further. In diffuse office lighting and soft conditions like candlelight the crisply aligned mirrors in each ACA optimize even subtle or distant light so that it has life and performance where other diamonds do not. With these diamonds you will see broad flashes from across a restaurant in candlelight. It’s a logical result of every mirror inside the diamond working in harmony, and the crisp, true optical symmetry that is Brian Gavin’s signature. This level of fine-tuning is a marriage of old-world knowledge with new-world technology for maximum performance in a diamond.

Visual Balance™

'A Cut Above' Hearts and Arrows Diamonds are designed by Brian Gavin and carefully cut by our Antwerp sightholder. Each ACA passes a set of rigorous tests for craftsmanship and light performance beyond the AGS ideal grade, and each is protected by our guarantee of top optical symmetry. Fewer than one diamond in a million have hearts and arrows patterning and 'A Cut Above' stand with the most elite. They have been described as the most visually balanced diamonds in the world.
"

and all PS Authority support WF advertisement for Brian Gavin type H&A. It is incorrect De Facto and misleading for consumers.
Consumers combine these two type documents , I sure you understand it very well.

Should we continue ?

I think WF staff should not push PS experts and PS admin to save Current version BG tutorial. We did good suggestion in private correspondence with BG, if you like discuss it on PS we can do it.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/7/2008 2:00:03 PM
Author: Serg



I think WF staff should not push PS experts and PS admin to save Current version BG tutorial. We did good suggestion in private correspondence with BG, if you like discuss it on PS we can do it.

Serg. 1) With your comments to Aljdewey, I think you are mixing the marketing on Whiteflash''s site, or for that matter, probably on most other sellers sites, with what Brian wrote a while ago as a historical perspective on H&A cutting. That documentaion stood as a historical patterning standard until certain merchants wanted it to change to fit their particular stones. My feeling is that the tutorial is what it is or was presented as, a description of the Japanese standard, if that can be elaborated on, or corrections made, fine, if it is game playing, wordsmithing, or additions just to please one faction or another, no dice.

And by the way, WF isn''t pushing me.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 8/7/2008 2:00:03 PM
Author: Serg



Allison,

re:The H&A tutorial isn''t there to tell everyone that they should only want a true H&A stone or that they are ''settling'' by selecting anything less. Not even close. It''s there to help those who do WANT a true Hearts and Arrows stone according to the classic definitions.

Yes PS H&A Brian Gavin tutorial is correct De Jure , BUT then same consumers go to

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds_info/t/all_about.aspx?articleid=24&zoneid=23



and read:

''
Optimal Light Return

Many diamonds are beautiful and all diamonds sparkle well in bright jewelry store lights. This is because the sheer volume of light returned to the eye overpowers any fine-tuning of the cut. ''A Cut Above'' diamonds go further. In diffuse office lighting and soft conditions like candlelight the crisply aligned mirrors in each ACA optimize even subtle or distant light so that it has life and performance where other diamonds do not. With these diamonds you will see broad flashes from across a restaurant in candlelight. It’s a logical result of every mirror inside the diamond working in harmony, and the crisp, true optical symmetry that is Brian Gavin’s signature. This level of fine-tuning is a marriage of old-world knowledge with new-world technology for maximum performance in a diamond.

Visual Balance™

''A Cut Above'' Hearts and Arrows Diamonds are designed by Brian Gavin and carefully cut by our Antwerp sightholder. Each ACA passes a set of rigorous tests for craftsmanship and light performance beyond the AGS ideal grade, and each is protected by our guarantee of top optical symmetry. Fewer than one diamond in a million have hearts and arrows patterning and ''A Cut Above'' stand with the most elite. They have been described as the most visually balanced diamonds in the world.

Serg, let me explain it this way:

1. True H&A''s are a standard of patterning achieving benchmark criteria recognized within the industry.
2. A Cut Above isn''t a pattern; it''s a BRAND.
3. Criteria for the A Cut Above brand isn''t limited to successful achievement of the true H&A pattern. It also requies superior light performance (which is not, not, not the same thing as patterning). Yet another criteria is achieving visual balance across a wide array of lighting conditions.

Simply put, the A Cut Above brand is but one brand of stones that exhibit true H&A patterning, and there are other criteria involved to earn our brand beyond patterning.

Because Brian''s tutorial is designed to help people understand what true H&A patterning is and is not intended to market his A Cut Above brand, his tutorial on PS talks only about the patterning requirements of true H&A here.

Given that one of the boasting points of our brand is achieving a true H&A pattern, it does also make sense our website would include information about true H&A patterning on our website. It also talks about other elements required by our brand that aren''t necessarily a requirement of H&A.

They are two separate things; class and brand are not the same. It might be better to explain this way.

1. Within the class "adhesive strips" are many forms including scotch tape, masking tape, surgical
tape, adhesive bandages, and velcro.
Likewise, within the class of stones with optical symmetry and patterning are many forms including
true H&As, well-cut princess, well-cut asscher stones, Richard Homer''s snowflake design, etc.

2. Within the class of ''adhesive bandages'' (which is itself a subset of adhesive strips) are several different brands,
including Band-Aid, Curad, and Invacare brand bandages.
Likewise, within the class of true H&A stones (which is itself a subset of optically symmetrical stones) are several
different brands, including A Cut Above and Hearts on Fire diamonds.

3. Within the various brands of adhesive bandages, there are other additional requirements to earn the brand
beyond inclusion in the class ''adhesive bandages''. (In Band-Aid''s case, it might include ability to adhere
successfully to elbows, withstand cold temperatures, ability to stay on in water 85% of time, etc. etc.
Likewise, within the barious brands of true H&A, brands typically require MORE than just displaying a
true H&A pattern. In the case of A Cut Above, some other requirements are meeting the AGS0 standard,
superior light performance, and visual balance across a broad spectrum of lighting conditions.

So, the classes/drilldowns would look like this:
Adhesives strips > adhesive bandage > Band-aid brand/Curad brand/Invacare brand.
Stones displaying optical symmetry/patterning > true H&A patterned stones > A Cut Above brand/HOF
brand, etc.

Requirements of the BRAND may be more stringent than requirements of the larger CLASS that includes the brand. Perfect proof that brands are not interchangeable with class: the ACA Princess cut. They are in no way H&A diamonds; they are stones that meet our *brand''s* criteria for well-cut princess stones.

So, while true H&A speaks only to optical symmetry and patterning, A Cut Above requires all that PLUS Brian''s ''bag of chips'' of choice.

Because the Pricescope tutorial is meant to describe the class "true H&A stones" (which are a subset of optically symmetrical stones and may include brands such as HOF and ACA with additional brand requirements), the Pricescope tutorial addresses only those elements require to fit the class "true H&A" (patterning) and doesn''t include things that don''t have any bearing on the class (light performance, etc.)

Because the Whiteflash website is meant to feature the A Cut Above BRAND, it defines the brand and the offerings of the brand (true H&A rounds and AGS0 well-cut princess stones) and the criteria for each variety of the A Cut Above Brand (in the case of rounds, it''s true H&A patterning, visual balance, light performance, AGS0 graded, etc.).

I hope this helps.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 8/7/2008 2:00:03 PM
Author: Serg


and all PS Authority support WF advertisement for Brian Gavin type H&A. It is incorrect De Facto and misleading for consumers.
Consumers combine these two type documents , I sure you understand it very well.

With due respect, Serg, PS has been openly willing to publish ANY tutorial that is supported with sound information. If you feel another perspective needs to be represented, you can absolutely write an article for submission into the tutorial to present another perspective. It's not a privilege exclusive to Brian; many others can partake if they are willing to dedicate a bit of their own sweat equity, too.

Beyond that, the tutorial isn't about "Brian Gavin's type of H&A". It is about benchmarks that the industry has acknowledged are a great basis for evaluating true H&A stones......not limited to A Cut Above. If his body of work is worthy of inclusion to the IDCC, it's hard to imagine why it wouldn't have some relevance on a consumer education site about diamonds.

Should we continue ?

I think WF staff should not push PS experts and PS admin to save Current version BG tutorial. We did good suggestion in private correspondence with BG, if you like discuss it on PS we can do it.

Serg, pardon me for asking, but who's pushing? Are you saying that I shouldn't be able to participate in an open discussion on Pricescope (which involves many different vendors) simply because I work for a vendor who actually took the time to offer enrichment materials here? If so, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. An OPEN discussion is just that.....and open discussion. If I were participating without disclosing my affiliation to Whiteflash, then I'd agree with you. My signature makes it very clear that I am now a member of the Whiteflash staff expressly so consumers can weight my contributions accordingly.

Incidentally, my opinion of record as a member of the company doesn't vary at all with my opinion of record during my consumers days, which are fully and well documented throughout my consumer posts on Pricescope during my five years as a consumer here. Not much has changed.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 8/7/2008 3:40:02 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/7/2008 2:00:03 PM
Author: Serg




I think WF staff should not push PS experts and PS admin to save Current version BG tutorial. We did good suggestion in private correspondence with BG, if you like discuss it on PS we can do it.

Serg. 1) With your comments to Aljdewey, I think you are mixing the marketing on Whiteflash''s site, or for that matter, probably on most other sellers sites, with what Brian wrote a while ago as a historical perspective on H&A cutting. That documentaion stood as a historical patterning standard until certain merchants wanted it to change to fit their particular stones. My feeling is that the tutorial is what it is or was presented as, a description of the Japanese standard, if that can be elaborated on, or corrections made, fine, if it is game playing, wordsmithing, or additions just to please one faction or another, no dice.

And by the way, WF isn''t pushing me.

Marty summed it up far better than I.

Thanks, Marty.

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/7/2008 3:40:02 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/7/2008 2:00:03 PM
Author: Serg




I think WF staff should not push PS experts and PS admin to save Current version BG tutorial. We did good suggestion in private correspondence with BG, if you like discuss it on PS we can do it.

Serg. 1) With your comments to Aljdewey, I think you are mixing the marketing on Whiteflash''s site, or for that matter, probably on most other sellers sites, with what Brian wrote a while ago as a historical perspective on H&A cutting. That documentaion stood as a historical patterning standard until certain merchants wanted it to change to fit their particular stones. My feeling is that the tutorial is what it is or was presented as, a description of the Japanese standard, if that can be elaborated on, or corrections made, fine, if it is game playing, wordsmithing, or additions just to please one faction or another, no dice.

And by the way, WF isn''t pushing me.

Marty,

re: I think you are mixing the marketing on Whiteflash''s site, or for that matter, probably on most other sellers sites, with what Brian wrote a while ago as a historical perspective on H&A cutting.

I did not mix documents . My message is very clear . Consumer could easy combine these two different documents in ONE( I sure some consumers do it)

"

Yes PS H&A Brian Gavin tutorial is correct De Jure , BUT then same consumers go to

http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds_info/t/all_about.aspx?articleid=24&zoneid=23

and read:

Optimal Light Return...

and all PS Authority support WF advertisement for Brian Gavin type H&A. It is incorrect De Facto and misleading for consumers.
"
re:And by the way, WF isn''t pushing me.

may be, but I see other options.: for example you do not see how WF push you.
Last Allison posts just confirm it.
very SIMPLE "this way" explanation , each consumer should EASY understand it

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/7/2008 4:14:40 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/7/2008 2:00:03 PM
Author: Serg



and all PS Authority support WF advertisement for Brian Gavin type H&A. It is incorrect De Facto and misleading for consumers.
Consumers combine these two type documents , I sure you understand it very well.

With due respect, Serg, PS has been openly willing to publish ANY tutorial that is supported with sound information. If you feel another perspective needs to be represented, you can absolutely write an article for submission into the tutorial to present another perspective. It''s not a privilege exclusive to Brian; many others can partake if they are willing to dedicate a bit of their own sweat equity, too.

Beyond that, the tutorial isn''t about ''Brian Gavin''s type of H&A''. It is about benchmarks that the industry has acknowledged are a great basis for evaluating true H&A stones......not limited to A Cut Above. If his body of work is worthy of inclusion to the IDCC, it''s hard to imagine why it wouldn''t have some relevance on a consumer education site about diamonds.

Should we continue ?

I think WF staff should not push PS experts and PS admin to save Current version BG tutorial. We did good suggestion in private correspondence with BG, if you like discuss it on PS we can do it.

Serg, pardon me for asking, but who''s pushing? Are you saying that I shouldn''t be able to participate in an open discussion on Pricescope (which involves many different vendors) simply because I work for a vendor who actually took the time to offer enrichment materials here? If so, I''m afraid I''ll have to disagree with you. An OPEN discussion is just that.....and open discussion. If I were participating without disclosing my affiliation to Whiteflash, then I''d agree with you. My signature makes it very clear that I am now a member of the Whiteflash staff expressly so consumers can weight my contributions accordingly.

Incidentally, my opinion of record as a member of the company doesn''t vary at all with my opinion of record during my consumers days, which are fully and well documented throughout my consumer posts on Pricescope during my five years as a consumer here. Not much has changed.

Allison,

re:Beyond that, the tutorial isn''t about ''Brian Gavin''s type of H&A''.




Did I write it?
my statement is simple:

consumer believes PS, he sees Brian Tutorial on PS, then he go to WF and sees ''WF advertisement for Brian Gavin type H&A'' ( just in this time PS authority supports


WF advertisement for Brian Gavin type H&A'')

If consumer just read PS tutorial he does not receive wrong message . PS tutorial is correct( not full, but correct)

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/7/2008 4:14:40 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/7/2008 2:00:03 PM
Author: Serg



and all PS Authority support WF advertisement for Brian Gavin type H&A. It is incorrect De Facto and misleading for consumers.
Consumers combine these two type documents , I sure you understand it very well.

With due respect, Serg, PS has been openly willing to publish ANY tutorial that is supported with sound information. If you feel another perspective needs to be represented, you can absolutely write an article for submission into the tutorial to present another perspective. It''s not a privilege exclusive to Brian; many others can partake if they are willing to dedicate a bit of their own sweat equity, too.

Beyond that, the tutorial isn''t about ''Brian Gavin''s type of H&A''. It is about benchmarks that the industry has acknowledged are a great basis for evaluating true H&A stones......not limited to A Cut Above. If his body of work is worthy of inclusion to the IDCC, it''s hard to imagine why it wouldn''t have some relevance on a consumer education site about diamonds.

Should we continue ?

I think WF staff should not push PS experts and PS admin to save Current version BG tutorial. We did good suggestion in private correspondence with BG, if you like discuss it on PS we can do it.

Serg, pardon me for asking, but who''s pushing? Are you saying that I shouldn''t be able to participate in an open discussion on Pricescope (which involves many different vendors) simply because I work for a vendor who actually took the time to offer enrichment materials here? If so, I''m afraid I''ll have to disagree with you. An OPEN discussion is just that.....and open discussion. If I were participating without disclosing my affiliation to Whiteflash, then I''d agree with you. My signature makes it very clear that I am now a member of the Whiteflash staff expressly so consumers can weight my contributions accordingly.

Incidentally, my opinion of record as a member of the company doesn''t vary at all with my opinion of record during my consumers days, which are fully and well documented throughout my consumer posts on Pricescope during my five years as a consumer here. Not much has changed.

You of course Welcome to Open Discussion.

What do you think about idea to add to PS tutorial below text:

“

It is hard for you as a consumer to compare the performance of diamonds in different jewelry stores. H&A’s makes it easy for you to recognize diamonds with a high level of performance. The absence of H&A symmetry does not mean a diamond will not have top performance, but to confirm that a non-H&A stone is worth buying you can compare it with H&A’s stones in different lighting.”

?

I see difference between discussion how is possible improve PS tutorial and pushing( correct pushing ,but just pushing)the idea to save current version PS tutorial

“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.”

 

[psadmin]

Gentlemen,

Please stick to the topic!

This thread is about "what is a true H&A."

There is no reason for mud slinging or speculative discussion.

Please stick to the Pricescope spirit of education.

Thank you,
Andrey

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/7/2008 11:40:42 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 8/7/2008 10:12:47 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 8/7/2008 9:30:03 AM
Author: Allison D.

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.

Re the highlighted, can you please elaborate how this would be at the expense of others?

To be completely frank, I think you may have misunderstood the intention - at least the way I have understood it.
The consumers on this thread are lobbying for a More detailed/involved tutorial, not a dumbed down one.

cheers
AJ

Sure, I''m happy to try and put it another way.

Pricescope is *not* a consumer protection site; that would be the BBB or JVC. Pricescope is a consumer education site. Here is what Pricescope is about (http://www.pricescope.com/about.asp)

Pricing information and comparison
Educational stuff
Some diamond tools
Reviews
Good people on the forum.

Pricescope''s ''buzz'' is people, their problems and experiences, conversations, spreading knowledge, theirs and
our desire to help each other and support fellow consumers.

Nowhere in that does it suggest that we are here to ''protect'' consumers or edit information because we think they aren''t bright enough to decide what information they should find helpful or smart enough to decide what information isn''t really pertinent to them.

In fact, Pricescope goes out of its way to discourage treating consumers as dumb customers here: ''We recommend listening to people''s concerns first, and don''t ever talk down to them– they are engineers, doctors, lawyers and really smart people disguised as dumb customers.''

This is the essence of Pricescope. The overwhelming majority of people who find Pricescope do so because they are *smart enough* to feed their intellectual curiosity by researching their purchase. They''ve likely already been exposed to tons of information (and sometimes misinformation) and have been smart enough to decide that information wasn''t really useful to them. Now they come here, and we''re going to suggest that doing the same here is somehow beyond their capabilities??

I believe if they were smart enough not to take information at face value locally, it''s an outright insult to suggest that they aren''t capable of handling and evaluating all the information that Pricescope has to offer and determining for themselves what things they deem important and what they don''t. By several admissions in these related threads, several of them have already successfully done so. Many have noted that despite an overwhelming and sometimes freakishly religious adherence to the cut/perfection sermon here, they''ve still been astute enough to make informed choices for other products that wouldn''t fall ''inside the lines'' for the cut-geeks.

The H&A tutorial isn''t there to tell everyone that they should only want a true H&A stone or that they are ''settling'' by selecting anything less. Not even close. It''s there to help those who do WANT a true Hearts and Arrows stone according to the classic definitions.

To suggest we shouldn''t offer that education/information to those who DO want it/find it pertinent because we don''t trust other VERY intelligent people (with high reading comprehension capabilities) to understand the scope of the tutorial is limited to H&A patterning *is* tantamount to withholding information at the expense of those who DO want to understand those benchmarks. We''d rather default to assuming that otherwise really smart people won''t be smart enough to pipe up and ask more questions if they are confused (even though others have been clearly able to do so), so let''s instead defile a body of work that was revered enough for presentation to industry leaders as a benchmark for standards of PATTERNING excellence.

I disagree with that. People who come to Pricescope are, for the most part, razor sharp. The way to offer MORE information is to write about OTHER fine patterning examples for the enrichment/education tutorials. The way to empower people with choices is to empower people with information about SEVERAL fine choices, not to call for surpressing information that others may find useful in the name of equity.

I''m sorry I don''t believe you read my original question.
Nobody suggested any consumer is "dumb" or "not bright enough" as you have put it.
If you are specifically referring to my posts, I simply said to John P that many consumers would not usually read through a whole discussion such as this one. This is a different kettle of fish to the H&A tutorial we are actually discussing.

I don''t know where your "protect the consumers" summation has come from, and looking back on the thread I can also not find where anyone has lobbied for "surpressing information"

Rather, I repeat, its the opposite.
I would be highly disappointed if PS became like you have described, and am just as passionate about the quality and quantity of knowledge offered here than the next poster.
I sincerely hope you are not making these assumption with reference to myself.
Anyone who reads my posts can see I try to help others with factual information and encourage them to educate themselves further on many topics.

If these comments were made with regards to other posters in this thread, I also fail to see the correlation, but apologize for taking it personally if this were not the intention.

Thankyou though for your lengthy response, and I do agree with you that generally people here are "razor sharp" and that we would love to have further tutorials to illustrate all our choices.

This thread has become a bit too full-on for me, I''m off to SMTR again now to chill out and admire the sparkly things, lol...

 

[Rhino]

Hi John.

Getting back to where we were at ... origins.

The first company cutting for Optical Symmetry was focusing on the face up cutting as demonstrated through the, then invented "FireScope" as it was used as the guide (and still is) for EightStar cutting.

Insofar as we know the original cutting for 8*'s, cut for Optical Symmetry (although that term had not yet been used), were cut with about 75% lower half length (unless someone knows otherwise).

Apollyon 8 then came out with their copies. To my knowledge the only difference may have perhaps been in the upper half cutting and maybe 75-77% lower halves.

The pattern on the pavilion was the coincedental pattern that resulted from 8*'s cutting. It was not purposely cut with a pavilion pattern in mind.

Regardless of who first discovered the patterning on the pavilion and marketed that feature ...

Why do you think it got the name for the pavilion patterning that it did?

Why, in the first place was a "Heart" called a "Heart"?

I know this seems like a rudimentary question but I have a follow up question for you based on your answer.

Peace,

 

[strmrdr]

I ask again because it is a very fundamental question that without an answer makes the "true" h&a concept a bit of a joke.

Why was 80% chosen as the limit?

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/8/2008 2:09:27 PM
Author: strmrdr
I ask again because it is a very fundamental question that without an answer makes the ''true'' h&a concept a bit of a joke.

Why was 80% chosen as the limit?

Strmdr,
Do you ask :

1)why was chosen exactly 80%( not 79 or 81) ,
2) or why is not possible 85%?

I think, You can ask same question about VS boundary for example

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/8/2008 2:09:27 PM
Author: strmrdr
I ask again because it is a very fundamental question that without an answer makes the ''true'' h&a concept a bit of a joke.

Why was 80% chosen as the limit?

I don''t think any of us have the answser you are wanting, and I am not sure why that would make the concept a bit of a joke. The parameters were not set by us so I doubt we can give you the answer.

Wink

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/8/2008 2:01:11 PM
Author: Rhino

Why, in the first place was a ''Heart'' called a ''Heart''?

Originally, and we''ve been down this road Rhino, it was Japanese marketing, love, cupid, symbolism, and all that mushy stuff, you know like:

1) "a diamond is forever" ( but marriages aren''t)
2) three months salary, hell, buy her a CZ
3) etc, etc, etc

Let''s not try to twist the conversation, the pattern was "defined" in Japan, the pattern(s) exemplified fine symmetrical cutting, the pattern specs are what they are, although I think, ill defined from the viewer standpoint, AND, might have some relationship to performance measures (and one can probably certainly come up with an envirionment whose metric is maximized with a particular parameter set), although no one has shown the range of, lets say, AGS grades, possible for some define range of accceptable patterns ( such as proposed by HRD) .

It is my understanding that some other labs have started branding stones as "H&A" with varying "standards", such as they might be.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/8/2008 2:17:50 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/8/2008 2:09:27 PM

Author: strmrdr

I ask again because it is a very fundamental question that without an answer makes the 'true' h&a concept a bit of a joke.


Why was 80% chosen as the limit?

Strmdr,

Do you ask :


1)why was chosen exactly 80%( not 79 or 81) ,

2) or why is not possible 85%?


I think, You can ask same question about VS boundary for example

In theory anyway the the clarity grades have well defined standards that are somewhat logical with a common reference:
http://www.gia.edu/library/4286/6278/faq_detail_page.cfm
Figuring out why they were set is fairly obvious.
Where 80% is not, now if no clefts were allowed then it would be more obvious that it was based on a pretty picture.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/8/2008 2:30:17 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/8/2008 2:01:11 PM
Author: Rhino

Why, in the first place was a ''Heart'' called a ''Heart''?

Originally, and we''ve been down this road Rhino, it was Japanese marketing, love, cupid, symbolism, and all that mushy stuff, you know like:

1) ''a diamond is forever'' ( but marriages aren''t)
2) three months salary, hell, buy her a CZ
3) etc, etc, etc

Let''s not try to twist the conversation, the pattern was ''defined'' in Japan, the pattern(s) exemplified fine symmetrical cutting, the pattern specs are what they are, although I think, ill defined from the viewer standpoint, AND, might have some relationship to performance measures (and one can probably certainly come up with an envirionment whose metric is maximized with a particular parameter set), although no one has shown the range of, lets say, AGS grades, possible for some define range of accceptable patterns ( such as proposed by HRD) .

It is my understanding that some other labs have started branding stones as ''H&A'' with varying ''standards'', such as they might be.

So your answer is the "Heart" came to be called a "Heart" because someone in some lab in Japan "defined" what a Heart is?

While my question was not directed towards you Marty I do apprecaite your answer (and of course anyone can take a stab) but I don''t believe it is the correct answer.

I don''t believe when they turned the 8* or Apollyon upside down that everyone was scratching their heads saying ... lets bring this to Japanese lab X and find out what we should call it.

Question stands. Why in the first place was a "Heart" called a "Heart"?

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/8/2008 2:18:50 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/8/2008 2:09:27 PM
Author: strmrdr
I ask again because it is a very fundamental question that without an answer makes the ''true'' h&a concept a bit of a joke.

Why was 80% chosen as the limit?

I don''t think any of us have the answser you are wanting, and I am not sure why that would make the concept a bit of a joke. The parameters were not set by us so I doubt we can give you the answer.

Wink

So what are the vendors/stores selling exactly (when they market H&A)???
Now I am getting confused...

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/8/2008 3:20:36 PM
Author: DiaGem

So what are the vendors/stores selling exactly (when they market H&A)???
Now I am getting confused...

Don''t you understand?

That is what "they" are trying to do. Confuse everyone, and possibly destroy any reputation that "classic" H&A''s have, just as they tried to do with painted halves (along with GIA).

If you don''t like the definition, lobby to obsfucate or change it, or try to make it meaningless.

At least that is my opinion, and I am entitled to it.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/8/2008 3:20:36 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/8/2008 2:18:50 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/8/2008 2:09:27 PM
Author: strmrdr
I ask again because it is a very fundamental question that without an answer makes the ''true'' h&a concept a bit of a joke.

Why was 80% chosen as the limit?

I don''t think any of us have the answser you are wanting, and I am not sure why that would make the concept a bit of a joke. The parameters were not set by us so I doubt we can give you the answer.

Wink

So what are the vendors/stores selling exactly (when they market H&A)???
Now I am getting confused...

We are selling the concept and the image of that concept that has been in place since before people started selling H&A stones in this country, what is it that you are confused about?

I do not have to know the history of this detail to know that I like the detail and that I am proud to sell stones with this detail. Nothing at all confusing about that.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/8/2008 2:53:46 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/8/2008 2:30:17 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/8/2008 2:01:11 PM
Author: Rhino

Why, in the first place was a ''Heart'' called a ''Heart''?

Originally, and we''ve been down this road Rhino, it was Japanese marketing, love, cupid, symbolism, and all that mushy stuff, you know like:

1) ''a diamond is forever'' ( but marriages aren''t)
2) three months salary, hell, buy her a CZ
3) etc, etc, etc

Let''s not try to twist the conversation, the pattern was ''defined'' in Japan, the pattern(s) exemplified fine symmetrical cutting, the pattern specs are what they are, although I think, ill defined from the viewer standpoint, AND, might have some relationship to performance measures (and one can probably certainly come up with an envirionment whose metric is maximized with a particular parameter set), although no one has shown the range of, lets say, AGS grades, possible for some define range of accceptable patterns ( such as proposed by HRD) .

It is my understanding that some other labs have started branding stones as ''H&A'' with varying ''standards'', such as they might be.

So your answer is the ''Heart'' came to be called a ''Heart'' because someone in some lab in Japan ''defined'' what a Heart is?

While my question was not directed towards you Marty I do apprecaite your answer (and of course anyone can take a stab) but I don''t believe it is the correct answer.

I don''t believe when they turned the 8* or Apollyon upside down that everyone was scratching their heads saying ... lets bring this to Japanese lab X and find out what we should call it.

Question stands. Why in the first place was a ''Heart'' called a ''Heart''?

Rhino,

This is the second or third time you have asked this question and intimated that you had a follow up question or answer for us once we had responded to what is beginning to feel like a "trick" question. Why don''t you just tell us what it is you want to say?

Wink

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/8/2008 3:35:30 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/8/2008 3:20:36 PM
Author: DiaGem

So what are the vendors/stores selling exactly (when they market H&A)???
Now I am getting confused...

Don't you understand?

That is what 'they' are trying to do. Confuse everyone, and possibly destroy any reputation that 'classic' H&A's have, just as they tried to do with painted halves (along with GIA).

If you don't like the definition, lobby to obsfucate or change it, or try to make it meaningless.

At least that is my opinion, and I am entitled to it.

re:That is what 'they' are trying to do. Confuse everyone, and possibly destroy any reputation that 'classic' H&

Who are "they"?

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/8/2008 3:49:13 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/8/2008 3:20:36 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/8/2008 2:18:50 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/8/2008 2:09:27 PM
Author: strmrdr
I ask again because it is a very fundamental question that without an answer makes the ''true'' h&a concept a bit of a joke.

Why was 80% chosen as the limit?

I don''t think any of us have the answser you are wanting, and I am not sure why that would make the concept a bit of a joke. The parameters were not set by us so I doubt we can give you the answer.

Wink

So what are the vendors/stores selling exactly (when they market H&A)???
Now I am getting confused...

We are selling the concept and the image of that concept that has been in place since before people started selling H&A stones in this country, what is it that you are confused about?

I do not have to know the history of this detail to know that I like the detail and that I am proud to sell stones with this detail. Nothing at all confusing about that.

Wink

What do you mean "Nothing at all confusing about that."???

You cant even define what you are selling??
Its just a "concept"

What detail do you think you like and how does that detail compare to other H&A with un-accepted detail???