True Hearts - Technical discussion

[Serg]

Date: 8/8/2008 3:59:46 PM
Author: 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???

Diagem,

It is question of Taste. Like in Vine
You can establish your owner standards with any deviation and promote it. If you have good taste, reasonable price , good promotion you will find your consumers
other wine will find other group consumers.
If deviation is too wide consumer could not believe in quality your product.
Deviation "classical H&A" is reasonable

No science , just Taste. Good Taste is better for sells than Good Science

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/8/2008 4:09:53 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/8/2008 3:59:46 PM
Author: 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???

Diagem,

It is question of Taste. Like in Vine
You can establish your owner standards with any deviation and promote it. If you have good taste, reasonable price , good promotion you will find your consumers
other wine will find other group consumers.
If deviation is too wide consumer could not believe in quality your product.
Deviation ''classical H&A'' is reasonable


No science , just Taste. Good Taste is better for sells than Good Science

Unexplainable taste???

So "Classic" is fine? And no one knows what classic means..., especially the average consumer?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/8/2008 3:56:57 PM
Author: Serg
re:That is what ''they'' are trying to do. Confuse everyone, and possibly destroy any reputation that ''classic'' H&

Who are ''they''?

Guess....

 

[Serg]

Diagem,

Re: Unexplainable taste???
So "Classic" is fine? And no one knows what classic means..., especially the average consumer?

Why are not?

I like “Alter Ego” vine. I can not explain my taste. I can share Vine with you. You will like my taste or not, But I do not like even try Explain my test

I like SAINT-EMILION Grand Cru too, Brunello, Amarono valpulichelo , Stellenbosch Wines , Angelo Gaia. These wine are so different but I like its , just like and I do not need any explanation my test

About Alter Ego :

“Bernard de Laage, Directeur de Developpement at Château Palmer, makes the point that they make "another--as opposed to a second" wine at Palmer, which they call Alter Ego. Palmer makes a conscious decision to construct two different kinds of wines, according to de Laage. He stresses Alter Ego is not a true "second" wine, because they start selecting the fruit for it in the vineyard and vinify those grapes differently. For example, at Château Margaux, all the wine is vinified the same. The winemaker tastes each barrel and designates some for the grand vin and others for the second wine, Pavillon Rouge de Château Margaux. At Palmer, according to de Laage, certain parts of the vineyard, which may differ year to year, are identified at the time of harvest as producing grapes for Alter Ego. These grapes are vinified differently to create a more forward drinking style of wine.
Alter Ego is meant to be less complex, earlier maturing than Palmer is. To this end, when they can identify clear differences in the vineyard, those crafting the wines will make the separation at harvest time and alter fermentation to bring out the fruit character and more supple, forward tannins for wines destined for Alter Ego. When they can''t distinguish in the vineyard those grapes destined for Alter Ego, they will make the selection either after fermentation or during the aging process. Once identified, the remainder of winemaking will be adjusted to suit the unique style of Alter Ego.
“
Diamond market could learn a lot of from Vine market ( in issue Branding, Innovation, consumer confidence, consumer differentiation, etc.)
But diamond market are moving in opposition direction : Ideal cut, AGS0, HRD H&A, commodity

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/8/2008 3:59:46 PM
Author: 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 answer 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???

Dear Diagem,

If you are confused about what is a Hearts and Arrows diamond, please go read the very excellent tutorial by Brian the Cutter. It is not at all confusing. That I do not know the history of how it came to be called a heart or why it stops at 80% lower girdle facets does not confuse me or even cause me to lose any sleep wondering why I do not know.

I do know that they are one of the patterns that are commonly seen only in incredibly well cut and high performance diamonds, the most well known in fact as I do not even know what Rhino will choose to call his "butterflies and arrows" patterned diamonds. Note that I say commonly seen, as it is possible to cut a less well performing diamond and maintain the pattern, it is just not common to do so.

There is no H&A with un-accepted detail, there is H&A and there is not H&A. If you chose to believe otherwise then perhaps this is why you are confusing yourself.

I am not knowing what the agenda is here, but I am sensing an agenda. You can not call the deeply clefted arrows H&A without rewriting the currently accepted definition as was given in Japan and now with minor modifications in Europe with the HRD. Changing this definition will NOT be accomplished on Pricescope, but only in the market place or in the gem laboratories.

Attempting to change this accepted standard is not going to work and will lower the respect that many people have for the individuals attempting to change it.

Writing a different tutorial about the new pattern would be a better approach, and yes I know that many people will want the old pattern because they believe that it is the best. That is their choice. Convince them with evidence that the new pattern is equally as good if you wish, but destroying the old pattern is NOT the answer.

Wink

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/8/2008 4:33:45 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/8/2008 3:56:57 PM
Author: Serg
re:That is what ''they'' are trying to do. Confuse everyone, and possibly destroy any reputation that ''classic'' H&

Who are ''they''?

Guess....

Marty,

re:Guess....

Again conspiracy ?
I think you need clarify your statement

Yesterday you Vulgarly attacked me.
Today you said me Sorry( for yesterday attack) , but again you try do vulgar attack. Whom do you try attack now?
My be you need stop your Vulgar attacks? I am respect your opinion without Vulgar attacks.
If you have some important information, please give it here for us.

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/8/2008 4:43:27 PM
Author: Serg


Diagem,


Re: Unexplainable taste???
So ''Classic'' is fine? And no one knows what classic means..., especially the average consumer?

Why are not?

I like “Alter Ego” vine. I can not explain my taste. I can share Vine with you. You will like my taste or not, But I do not like even try Explain my test

Sorry Serg..., cant see or understand the comparisons..., the wine seller or marketer will have the knowledge or (at least) the tools to explain or make its clients understand its product...., that does not seem happening with vendors who only say they sell a concept with no explained focus or worse..., no knowledge on this supposed concept!

I like SAINT-EMILION Grand Cru too, Brunello, Amarono valpulichelo , Stellenbosch Wines , Angelo Gaia. These wine are so different but I like its , just like and I do not need any explanation my test

About Alter Ego :

“Bernard de Laage, Directeur de Developpement at Château Palmer, makes the point that they make ''another--as opposed to a second'' wine at Palmer, which they call Alter Ego. Palmer makes a conscious decision to construct two different kinds of wines, according to de Laage. He stresses Alter Ego is not a true ''second'' wine, because they start selecting the fruit for it in the vineyard and vinify those grapes differently. For example, at Château Margaux, all the wine is vinified the same. The winemaker tastes each barrel and designates some for the grand vin and others for the second wine, Pavillon Rouge de Château Margaux. At Palmer, according to de Laage, certain parts of the vineyard, which may differ year to year, are identified at the time of harvest as producing grapes for Alter Ego. These grapes are vinified differently to create a more forward drinking style of wine.
Alter Ego is meant to be less complex, earlier maturing than Palmer is. To this end, when they can identify clear differences in the vineyard, those crafting the wines will make the separation at harvest time and alter fermentation to bring out the fruit character and more supple, forward tannins for wines destined for Alter Ego. When they can''t distinguish in the vineyard those grapes destined for Alter Ego, they will make the selection either after fermentation or during the aging process. Once identified, the remainder of winemaking will be adjusted to suit the unique style of Alter Ego.
“

Diamond market could learn a lot of from Vine market ( in issue Branding, Innovation, consumer confidence, consumer differentiation, etc.)
But diamond market are moving in opposition direction : Ideal cut, AGS0, HRD H&A, commodity

I agree with the highlighted text..., but thats where the Lab''s are caught pulling the strings towards their interests (and many are playing along [unfortunately])...., but what you are describing is happening in the jewelry sector..., they are using similar marketing techniques as the vine market uses to differentiate themselves...., I cant stop from noticing a growing number of new (and known) designers who use un-certified

Diamonds on a regular basis in their designs..., and I must add they are successful at it..

This industry is sure changing...

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/8/2008 4:44:31 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/8/2008 3:59:46 PM
Author: 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 answer 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???

Dear Diagem,

If you are confused about what is a Hearts and Arrows diamond, please go read the very excellent tutorial by Brian the Cutter. It is not at all confusing. That I do not know the history of how it came to be called a heart or why it stops at 80% lower girdle facets does not confuse me or even cause me to lose any sleep wondering why I do not know.

I do know that they are one of the patterns that are commonly seen only in incredibly well cut and high performance diamonds, the most well known in fact as I do not even know what Rhino will choose to call his 'butterflies and arrows' patterned diamonds. Note that I say commonly seen, as it is possible to cut a less well performing diamond and maintain the pattern, it is just not common to do so.

I actually think they are pretty common..., I think there are numerous cutting houses who specialize in cutting deep H&A patterns and marketing them as acceptable H&A's.

There is no H&A with un-accepted detail, there is H&A and there is not H&A. If you chose to believe otherwise then perhaps this is why you are confusing yourself.

Believe me Wink..., If I get confused..., the consumer gets confused faster...

I am not knowing what the agenda is here, but I am sensing an agenda. You can not call the deeply clefted arrows H&A without rewriting the currently accepted definition as was given in Japan and now with minor modifications in Europe with the HRD. Changing this definition will NOT be accomplished on Pricescope, but only in the market place or in the gem laboratories.

Well..., by my reading this thread I cant help but notice modifications are at work..., minor or not!

Attempting to change this accepted standard is not going to work and will lower the respect that many people have for the individuals attempting to change it.

Why..., change could be a positive move..., look at the rest of this industry..., it is changing at a more rapid pace than many are even able to handle..., if its grading, cutting or marketing...

Writing a different tutorial about the new pattern would be a better approach, and yes I know that many people will want the old pattern because they believe that it is the best. That is their choice. Convince them with evidence that the new pattern is equally as good if you wish, but destroying the old pattern is NOT the answer.

What visual effects do the patterns create? in real life viewing and not in a tool-box?

Wink

And Wink..., no strings (agenda) attached...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/8/2008 4:44:31 PM
Author: Wink

Writing a different tutorial about the new pattern would be a better approach, and yes I know that many people will want the old pattern because they believe that it is the best. That is their choice. Convince them with evidence that the new pattern is equally as good if you wish, but destroying the old pattern is NOT the answer.


Wink

Why shouldn''t the proponents of the old pattern have to prove it is the best if they want to say it is the best?

I have no problem with the the marketing concept of "true" h&a within the confines of the angle combination it works with.
As long as it is presented as such and as one good option among many.
But if someone wants to claim it is the best and all others fail...

I say prove it :}

I do not accept because I say so nor he said so for an answer.

Not accepting that has raised me to the level of learning I am at in both the diamond and computer fields.
Someone once said something works this way because it has to in a computer program.
I spent 3 months learning more about computer programming to see if they were right and in the end they were not and I proved them wrong.
That came in handy a few months later when I was hired to write a computer program for someone.
I also found out computer programming for a living is not something I would enjoy but that is another story.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/8/2008 3:54:19 PM
Author: Wink

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

Greetings Wink,

No trick question. Just simple ol common sense if you ask me.

Why in the first place was the Heart on the bottom of an 8* or Appolyon called a Heart?

I suggest that the genius' who saw the pattern thought, out of all of the symbols in the world it looked most similar to option B.

THAT ORIGINAL HEARTS PATTERN WAS NOT PURPOSELY CUT TO DISPLAY THAT PARTICULAR PATTERN. It was the natural coincedence of precision cutting with the measurements involved.

I believe the following statment would be accurate and correct.

The gentleman who observed the pattern through the pavilion, by way of sound reason, logic and common sense thought it looked most similar to the symbol that has come to represent a "Heart" hence they called it a "Heart".

Does anyone have any problem with this statement?

It is the same statement demonstrated by the graphic I posted here.

https://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/files/HeartsGRAPHIC01.jpg

Any problems with this statement anyone?

And actually I have 2 follow up questions.

 

[Rhino]

...

 

[Rhino]

Question 1. Had the consequential pattern been like the one below, out of all of the symbols in the known world, what is it that you think these same genius'' by virtue of the same reason, logic and common sense would have driven them to call it?

Ask yourself ... out of all the known symbols in the world ... what does it look most like to me?

A duck? A cake? An automobile?

 

[Rhino]

Question 2.

Which is the true Heart?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/8/2008 6:43:47 PM
Author: Rhino
Question 1. Had the consequential pattern been like the one below, out of all of the symbols in the known world, what is it that you think these same genius'' by virtue of the same reason, logic and common sense would have driven them to call it?

Ask yourself ... out of all the known symbols in the world ... what does it look most like to me?

A duck? A cake? An automobile?

Nice try, but you are about twenty some years too late. The current definition is what it is and you are not going to be able to convince us that your butterflies and arrows are the same as Hearts and arrows. Are they top performers, I would guess that since you are having them cut, then yes. Could some be cut that way that were not, absolutely.

You can dislike the current definition as much as you want, and you can show us pictures that "prove" it was just an unfortunate coincidence that your long lower girdle faceted stones were not chosen as the standard, but man, it has been more than twenty years ago that the standard was set. You simply can not call your 85% lower girdle faceted stones H&A and make the name stick. Frankly it surprises me that you try, I think you know better. A goose looks a lot like a duck and also a swan, but one look is all that it takes to know it is a goose, not a duck or a swan. Same thing with your deeply clefted pattern. It is almost a heart, but it is not, at least not by traditional and long accepted standards.

I for one do not want to dilute the reputation and saleability of the traditional H&A, I have worked too long and too hard to educate my clients about them for the past several years. I am happy to admit that there are other potential patterns that may well perform just as well but I will be darned if I will acquiesce to someone calling the deeply clefted pattern a heart just because it is more convenient for them.

Wink

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/8/2008 6:46:32 PM
Author: Rhino
Question 2.

Which is the true Heart?

Rhino: Why don''t you go lobby HRD to make your stones the "perfect" heart. I''m sure that you can come up with enough money to make any lab be convinced of your viewpoint. Until then an H&A is defined (or ill defined) by a certain pattern, whether you like it or not, so stop the game playing, and prove something usefull, just don''t whine. You don;t call a tangerine an orange, even though a tangerine may be more tasty, and (for Sergeys benefit) you don''t all a wine a Premier Grand Cru Chateau Margeau if it wasn''t grown on the Chateau Margeau vineyard (By the way, I remember that was a VERY BAD vintage)

Serg: Your viewpoint seems to be on record "But diamond market are moving in opposition direction : Ideal cut, AGS0, HRD H&A, commodity" and you don''t apparently like the trend, from what I seem to understand for whatever reason, and I suppose because a lot of people may have rejected your very good software solutions, which was a mistake, in my book.

Most people here would rather KNOW what they are buying, even though they might not understand why, rather than shell $$$ out to unknowledable salesstaff at regular (non guild) brick and mortar stores. That is why they buy papaerd stones from labs they "think" they can trust (if they only knew and from reputable sellers who hopefully give them all the information they want.

I''d still like to know what the reference stone size was and what the dimensions were in the Japanese viewer, so we would all have a better technical idea of what the boundaries were for a "non failing" H&A pattern, and why the apparent disparty in the HRD range of acceptable parameters.

 

[Rhino]

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


Rich, Independent GG Appraiser
Sarasota Gemological Laboratory

Trying to catch up here a bit. It is good to see you back my old friend.

 

[Rhino]

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.

Not to veer off subject but this is not true. I submitted my article and research regarding my gemological opinion on the HCA and it was shot down for no good reason.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

As an appraiser, if I were describing one of these (Rhino's) stones, I would describe it in the following manner to give it its full due, yet differentiate it from traditionally accepted Hearts & Arrows pattern:

"Precision optical symmetry demonstrated by a non-traditional modified hearts & arrows pattern".


Rich, Independent GG Appraiser
Sarasota Gemological Laboratory

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 8/8/2008 8:09:23 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/6/2008 9:59:18 PM

Author: Richard Sherwood

When do we break for beer?

Rich, Independent GG Appraiser
Sarasota Gemological Laboratory

Trying to catch up here a bit. It is good to see you back my old friend.

Good to see you too, Rhino. Now send me my 100 bucks.


Rich, Independent GG Appraiser
Sarasota Gemological Laboratory

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 8/8/2008 8:03:34 PM
Author: adamasgem


...That is why they buy papaerd stones from labs they ''think'' they can trust (if they only knew ...

Are you referring to labs like GIA and AGS?
Could you further clarify this statement, please? Thank you!

Lynn

 

[Rhino]

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

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)

Hi Allison,

Good to see ya.

Not to veer off subject but my perspective on this is that consumers are in fact protected by accurate information. People come here to research in the effort of making informed, educated decisions. When they are given accurate and truthful information, that information protects and guards them in making better buying decisions. When information is presented or communicated in a misleading manner (whether intentional or unintentional) it does not protect the person who is seeking to make the wisest decision.

Take one particular diamond experts opinion that "total depths over 61% produces diamonds with too much light leakage", publish that in a PS tutorial which is communicated as sound advice to the consumers who read it and would we not be performing a dissservice to those who come here to learn? Wouldn''t we in fact be harming and not protecting those who come here to learn? It''s my conviction that truthful and accurate information, by their very nature protect us in the buying decisions we make each day. It is also my conviction that the one who educates takes on a moral responsibiltiy to present the facts as clearly and concisely as possible with all integrity. Don''t get me wrong Allison. I respect all prior work that has been done and in no way suggesting new patterns are superior etc. The beef, so to speak has already been communicated. It''s the confusion that has already been expressed by others in this thread already. Where we may part in opinion at this point is the discrimination of one type of Hearts pattern over another.

From both a purely aesthetic and also gemological perspective I see no sound reason to discriminate from one Hearts pattern to another. It''s akin to the last question I posed showing the 3 Heart patterns asking "Which is the true Heart?"

Thanks for your input.

Kind regards,

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/8/2008 8:31:08 PM
Author: Rhino

Not to veer off subject but this is not true. I submitted my article and research regarding my gemological opinion on the HCA and it was shot down for no good reason.

I would imagine they had given you the courtesy of a critique???? Maybe you just don''t accept their opinion or maybe your research was not up to snuff. And did you find out whether it was peer reviewed (and by who) or was it an arbitrary desicion.

It is their sandbox don''t forget, and quite frankly, I''ve seen and crtitiqued published articles in othe sandboxes ( G&G for example) which didn''t pass my muster, and have gotten into a few p***ing" contests with authors who didn''t want my viewpoint to see the light of day, but the editors prevailed and it did.

Resubmit it with suggested changes, if it was correctly reviewed and honestly done, BUT ONLY IF you ag''ee with the suggested changes.

I know the feeling, having articles and papers pulled because of interagency governmental "secrecy" crap.

I know how you can feel, especially if you feel you have done a good job and a balanced ctitique.

Otherwise, you have a website, publish it there.. and put up a blog for critiques, but be prepared to take lumps (as well as possible lawsuits) if they are deserved, otherwise $*&^ ''em.

See Rhino.. I can sometimes agree even with you.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

There has been a lot written while I slept. Why were you not all watching the olympics opening?

A few observations

1. LynnB asked about marty''s claim that labs grading is questionable - read the thread pined at the top about IDEX and GIA etc.

2. Rhino give up on the sermons ond guessing games please - this is an expert discussion - consumers are of course always welcome, but you will waste your time talking to them here - go do some real research - Storm you can help him prove or disprove the validity that longer / deeper LGF or the Japanese standard is best.

3. Marty and Alison - Sergey''s view is that there was a time when H&A''s was a really hard thing to do - but today it is not one in a million - it is a natural outcome of the move from diamond cutting as a cottage in the home industry - to consolidated large computerised factories with solid granite or marble polishing benches and the overall tightening of manufacturing standards.

There are hardly any diamonds on B2B sites now with poor or fair polish and symmetry. and even the labs now are catching up to the idea of optical symmetry as a grading tool.
It has led to things like an adv in trade magazines by AGS claiming diamonds graded AGS 0 recieve a 3-5% premium in the market place - this was probably +10% several years ago, even when their grading standard was bad. We will soon see that premium disappear altogether, as there will be heaps more AGS 0''s on the market and their business will grow.

If that is not commoitization, then I do not know what is?

Is that bad?

Well, actually - yes it is, because consumers do not know what they are missing, they do not know the alternatives for personal expression. My own attempt (failed so far) was to introduce BIC, TIC and FIC variation into round diamonds - a small bit of practical and easily done diversification.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/8/2008 8:59:11 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/8/2008 8:31:08 PM
Author: Rhino

Not to veer off subject but this is not true. I submitted my article and research regarding my gemological opinion on the HCA and it was shot down for no good reason.

I would imagine they had given you the courtesy of a critique???? Maybe you just don''t accept their opinion or maybe your research was not up to snuff. And did you find out whether it was peer reviewed (and by who) or was it an arbitrary desicion.

It is their sandbox don''t forget, and quite frankly, I''ve seen and crtitiqued published articles in othe sandboxes ( G&G for example) which didn''t pass my muster, and have gotten into a few p***ing'' contests with authors who didn''t want my viewpoint to see the light of day, but the editors prevailed and it did.

Resubmit it with suggested changes, if it was correctly reviewed and honestly done, BUT ONLY IF you ag''ee with the suggested changes.

I know the feeling, having articles and papers pulled because of interagency governmental ''secrecy'' crap.

I know how you can feel, especially if you feel you have done a good job and a balanced ctitique.

Otherwise, you have a website, publish it there.. and put up a blog for critiques, but be prepared to take lumps (as well as possible lawsuits) if they are deserved, otherwise $*&^ ''em.

See Rhino.. I can sometimes agree even with you.

Rhino where are all your Pscope Journal articles?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/8/2008 8:48:24 PM
Author: Lynn B

Date: 8/8/2008 8:03:34 PM
Author: adamasgem



...That is why they buy papaerd stones from labs they ''think'' they can trust (if they only knew ...

Are you referring to labs like GIA and AGS?
Could you further clarify this statement, please? Thank you!

Lynn

Lynn, GIA, I am on record as not trusting, especially with their bastardized and nearly useless, if not out and out defamitory and misleadiing cut grading.

Some smaller secondary labs, especially those from overseas, are sometimes very problematic, and when labs fail to make a comparison of their grades with those of the 800# gorrila (GIA), steer clear, because their own definition of grades can vary wildly, even when the 800# gorrila might be right.

Don''t forget, reports are NOT guarantees or warranties.
It is the seller who warrants the goods by using the report as a sales tool.

PS did a limited and interesting lab comparison a while back on the main page ( http://grading.pricescope.com/ ) and recently there have been two reports on IDEX (a trade site) some of which emulated a study I did a few years back on the availability of goods and the average grades between labs, similar, but not in as much depth as this report.

http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullMazalUbracha.asp?TextSearch=&KeyMatch=1&id=30649

and this was an eyeopener as to lab to lab variances..

http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullMazalUbracha.asp?TextSearch=&KeyMatch=1&id=30660

unfortunately, the latter of which didn''t name the names of the labs..

Remember to do a proper grade comparison study requies paying the fees of each lab on a statistically significant sample set, not an inexpensive undertaking.. $30 to $100 or more from each lab plus the cost of the stones times a statistically significant sample set is a lare undertaking, you are looking a $30K or more in reports just to start getting reliable data sets.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/8/2008 9:16:26 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
3. Marty and Alison - Sergey''s view is that there was a time when H&A''s was a really hard thing to do - but today it is not one in a million - it is a natural outcome of the move from diamond cutting as a cottage in the home industry - to consolidated large computerised factories with solid granite or marble polishing benches and the overall tightening of manufacturing standards.

There are hardly any diamonds on B2B sites now with poor or fair polish and symmetry. and even the labs now are catching up to the idea of optical symmetry as a grading tool.
It has led to things like an adv in trade magazines by AGS claiming diamonds graded AGS 0 recieve a 3-5% premium in the market place - this was probably +10% several years ago, even when their grading standard was bad. We will soon see that premium disappear altogether, as there will be heaps more AGS 0''s on the market and their business will grow.

If that is not commoitization, then I do not know what is?

Garry you are not allowed to sleep..

Yes cutting has generally improved overall due to technology.

As to comodization, it is going to take a long time for AGS (or a similar quality lab with real stanards [which you can agree with or not])to make a real dent in the total number of stones graded for cut, especially with the 800# gorrillas noose on the market, and everything being an EX, and also considering all the secondary, what grade do you want on the paper, labs here in the US and especially overseas, who sell thousands of $10-$20 reports for the mass merchandisers. (Who eventually screw their suppliers by going bankrupt)

Besides most diamond don''t even see lab reports, they are sold by schlock mall stores whose idea of grading is price point and mass merchandising.

And then we have the bottom feeders who buy up the bankrupcies

.

Don''t delude yourself that there are that many well cut stones out there. That is my opinion.

 

[Rhino]

Greetings Wink,

Let me clarify.

I am not knowing what the agenda is here, but I am sensing an agenda. You can not call the deeply clefted arrows H&A without rewriting the currently accepted definition as was given in Japan and now with minor modifications in Europe with the HRD. Changing this definition will NOT be accomplished on Pricescope, but only in the market place or in the gem laboratories.

Firstly ... yes. My agenda is truthfulness in communicating the facts. I see and have seen precision cut diamonds that produce a Hearts pattern that is different from the "traditional" and I know for a fact that they are not in any way failurers or inferior by any definition of the word. FACT: Not according to GIA standards. FACT: Not according to AGS standards and not according to any standards of *precision* that are observed beyond GIA and AGS specs for what they consider to be their top of the line. Not from an aesthetic standpoint with regards to patterning, nor (and most importantly) from any gemological standpoint whatsoever.

My agenda is to open the minds of people to see that The world of gemology and specifically 57 facet round brilliant cut diamonds are not limited to only 1 type of Hearts pattern. Here in this country if it looks like one, smells like one and tastes like ... it is one.

This country used to sadly follow a mentality that if you had a different skin color you weren''t fully evolved or developed or a different class of human. The thinking was that if you had a different skin color you weren''t the same. People at that time had a hard time accepting that there is more than one human race yet with varying skin colors. My message is no less different really but on a much less important scale. 2 diamonds can be cut with equal levels of precision, equal levels of light performance and both produce 2 different types of Hearts. One is not true and one is not false. Both are equal. While I respect Japan none of my clients have ever asked me for a Report from Japan nor the opinion of a Japanese gemologist. Yes I am introducing a different type of Hearts pattern but it is no less a Heart than any other and I see no sound reason to discriminate between the 2. Asking which is the "true" Heart is akin to the question I posed with the 3 graphics. The fact is all 3 are true Hearts, just 3 different types of Hearts. I don''t need a Japanese lab to define that for me. It would however be accurate to state as John P and I were discussing earlier ... one is traditional while one is newer.

Also, if you do feel strongly about submitting to Japanese authority & definition perhaps you should consider having all of your diamonds submitted to them if you feel its really that important. Until my clients start demanding Japanese lab reports, this issue is moot for me at this point. Japan is not my authority and has "0" influence on my purchasing decisions and capital investments. Never has been and Lord willing never will be.

Attempting to change this accepted standard is not going to work and will lower the respect that many people have for the individuals attempting to change it.

If excerising my right to free speech and voicing my opinion which disagrees with Japan earns me less respect then so be it. Japan is not my authority and they nor anyone has the right to silence me. I am not here presenting misinformation. I am suggesting by way of simple logic and common sense that there is more than one type of Heart pattern. I am a professional in this industry with perhaps more experience in this field than most of my peers in this country and that is my professional opinion.

Wink, really. Can you give me one logical reason why the pattern produced by 82% lower halves should not be called a Heart?

Writing a different tutorial about the new pattern would be a better approach, and yes I know that many people will want the old pattern because they believe that it is the best. That is their choice. Convince them with evidence that the new pattern is equally as good if you wish, but destroying the old pattern is NOT the answer.

Wink

Ugh... you''re not getting it. I am not trying to destroy the old pattern.

I am not suggesting the new pattern is better. I am saying it is no less beautiful than the traditional one. I am not saying anything different than the research GIA and AGS have put out on this subject already my friend. What I am saying is that one Hearts pattern should not be discriminated against the other especially when neither demonstrates anything meaningful when it comes to gemology. One is not cut more precise and one does not have superior light performance over another.


Peace,

 

[strmrdr]

off topic but some numbers on diamond cut since Garry and Marty brought it up.
From the PS search engine:
Round shape, 0.2–20 cts, D–Z color, IF–I2 clarity, 63–75% depth, 40–75% table, $100–1000000
result: Your query returns too many (41371)

run the same test for under 63% depth:
Your query returns too many (188286) listings

so out of 229657 diamonds total:
18% can be dismissed from being classified as well cut just by depth.
82% have a chance of being considered well cut.

Wish I had the database to search by pol/sym that would be interesting.

But since I cant:
5336 have AGS reports or 2.03%
183655 have gia reports or 79.98%
40666 are other. 17.7%

I suspect the PS search is pretty representative* of the online market but it might not be??
edit: *that is if you exclude the mass merchandise stores.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/8/2008 9:16:26 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Storm you can help him prove or disprove the validity that longer / deeper LGF or the Japanese standard is best.

I would rather spend time thinking about my virtual facet article.

Getting it simple enough to understand beyond the basics is a pita.

But I have ran some combos in DC.
Using brightness as a metric:
Near tolk combos there is some merit to the Japanese standard but in a lot of cases 77%-80% would be more in line with the best range.
Outside of very near tolk range: BIC''s and FICs and steep P / shallow C the longer lgf% are brighter in a lot of cases.

That is my problem with it.
For a reason no one can tell me why it cuts off some awesome combos every bit as good as the ones it includes.

I don''t want to destroy the standard I want it properly explained and positioned rather than hyped.
That is honesty in presenting information that PS is noted for.
Hype should be reserved to a vendors own site not PS.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/8/2008 8:42:48 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
As an appraiser, if I were describing one of these (Rhino''s) stones, I would describe it in the following manner to give it its full due, yet differentiate it from traditionally accepted Hearts & Arrows pattern:


''Precision optical symmetry demonstrated by a non-traditional modified hearts & arrows pattern''.



Rich, Independent GG Appraiser

Sarasota Gemological Laboratory

I don''t have a problem with that description or a tutorial that covers it in that manner.