True Hearts - Technical discussion

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/2/2008 6:38:35 PM
Author: DiaGem
So to my humble understanding the H&A criteria is not well defined

? So why such a looong argument?

Sounds like everyone could be right on this one..., no??

I think the issue on hearts and arrows is that some vendors, most of who have posted on this issue in this or the eariler thread, have been saying for a very long time that H&A''s are better, or best, or they have aligned the idea of precision with the quality and therefore consumers have assumed that means they look better.

Now there is a debate ove what patterns and LGF length / depth really qualify, or if it matters as long as the patterns work, or it there are different patterns that are better etc.

So since there are different patterns that are top performing stones, and there are different points of view on what qualify''s as per Japanese, BGavin or now HRD''s standards, that can also have less than best proportions it means there is an insoluble debate.

I state again, that unless there is a proper study which can confirm or reset global opinions you are all wasting your time.
Sergey, the Cut Group and I seem to be the only ones doing anything about general proportion comparison. I think we could also include a symmetry study and even perhaps lower girdle length side by side comparisons.

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

And here is our most recent experimantal lighting environment:

 

[adamasgem]

And here is our most recent experimantal lighting environment:

Probably works better than the KittyDock(TM)

 

[diagem]

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

Date: 8/2/2008 6:38:35 PM
Author: DiaGem
So to my humble understanding the H&A criteria is not well defined

? So why such a looong argument?

Sounds like everyone could be right on this one..., no??

I think the issue on hearts and arrows is that some vendors, most of who have posted on this issue in this or the eariler thread, have been saying for a very long time that H&A''s are better, or best, or they have aligned the idea of precision with the quality and therefore consumers have assumed that means they look better.

Now there is a debate ove what patterns and LGF length / depth really qualify, or if it matters as long as the patterns work, or it there are different patterns that are better etc.

So since there are different patterns that are top performing stones, and there are different points of view on what qualify''s as per Japanese, BGavin or now HRD''s standards, that can also have less than best proportions it means there is an insoluble debate.

I state again, that unless there is a proper study which can confirm or reset global opinions you are all wasting your time.
Sergey, the Cut Group and I seem to be the only ones doing anything about general proportion comparison. I think we could also include a symmetry study and even perhaps lower girdle length side by side comparisons.

So I am correct in thinking: "Sounds like everyone could be right on this one..., no??"

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

And here is our most recent experimantal lighting environment:
Can I see a pic. of you clarity grading these days??

Garry..., if I was in possession of the rounds (or any conventional fancies) you needed I would certainly try to assist...

 

[adamasgem]

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

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

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

GIA DOES NOT CERTIFY ANYONE, OR ANYTHING.

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


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

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/2/2008 7:33:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/2/2008 7:03:42 PM
Author: DiaGem

Do classify a 'true' H&A in the same rarity level as natures VVS+ Diamond clarities?

not even close in my book as every piece of rough that will cut a round could be cut h&a no matter how many inclusions it has.

In my opinion, the cutting is far more important than the clarity.

I have seen round brilliant I1 diamonds that were AGS 0 cut graded that looked far better to the eye than a D-IF that was AGS 6 cut graded. I am convinced that cutting it THE most important of the 4 C's.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

double post. Oops.

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/3/2008 3:54:17 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/2/2008 7:33:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/2/2008 7:03:42 PM
Author: DiaGem

Do classify a ''true'' H&A in the same rarity level as natures VVS+ Diamond clarities?

not even close in my book as every piece of rough that will cut a round could be cut h&a no matter how many inclusions it has.

In my opinion, the cutting is far more important than the clarity.

I have seen round brilliant I1 diamonds that were AGS 0 cut graded that looked far better to the eye than a D-IF that was AGS 6 cut graded. I am convinced that cutting it THE most important of the 4 C''s.

Wink

I respect your opinion Wink..., and somewhat agree with you...

But, I personally prefer the character options a Diamond gets when not cut perfect...
H&A just does not do it to me...

, my preference is when each Diamond has its own identifiable look..., uniform bores me..., but thats just me...

Its just interesting reading how each one of you (participating in this thread) sees and thinks a bit different on a subject that probably does not even affect "much" the visual appearance of the Diamond in its natural lighting options (less the tools

)....

I am not rich in knowledge on this subject..., but obviously every (Ideal or Ex.) RB Diamond changes a bit when cutting the lgf''s at different lengths (especially with the CA options which make the Ideal/Ex range)..., but it all comes to the clients own preference when choosing..., obviously the way the hearts are displayed in the (H&A) viewer does not say which Diamond is more beautiful.

oh..., and BTW..., I love and realy believe uncut Diamonds are sculptures of nature..., well at least some of them....

What do you think of this one?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/3/2008 5:01:48 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2008 3:54:17 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/2/2008 7:33:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/2/2008 7:03:42 PM
Author: DiaGem

Do classify a ''true'' H&A in the same rarity level as natures VVS+ Diamond clarities?

not even close in my book as every piece of rough that will cut a round could be cut h&a no matter how many inclusions it has.

In my opinion, the cutting is far more important than the clarity.

I have seen round brilliant I1 diamonds that were AGS 0 cut graded that looked far better to the eye than a D-IF that was AGS 6 cut graded. I am convinced that cutting it THE most important of the 4 C''s.

Wink

I respect your opinion Wink..., and somewhat agree with you...

But, I personally prefer the character options a Diamond gets when not cut perfect...
H&A just does not do it to me...

, my preference is when each Diamond has its own identifiable look..., uniform bores me..., but thats just me...

Its just interesting reading how each one of you (participating in this thread) sees and thinks a bit different on a subject that probably does not even affect ''much'' the visual appearance of the Diamond in its natural lighting options (less the tools

)....

I am not rich in knowledge on this subject..., but obviously every (Ideal or Ex.) RB Diamond changes a bit when cutting the lgf''s at different lengths (especially with the CA options which make the Ideal/Ex range)..., but it all comes to the clients own preference when choosing..., obviously the way the hearts are displayed in the (H&A) viewer does not say which Diamond is more beautiful.

oh..., and BTW..., I love and realy believe uncut Diamonds are sculptures of nature..., well at least some of them....

What do you think of this one?

I think it is wonderful!!

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/3/2008 5:18:44 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/3/2008 5:01:48 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2008 3:54:17 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/2/2008 7:33:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/2/2008 7:03:42 PM
Author: DiaGem

Do classify a ''true'' H&A in the same rarity level as natures VVS+ Diamond clarities?

not even close in my book as every piece of rough that will cut a round could be cut h&a no matter how many inclusions it has.

In my opinion, the cutting is far more important than the clarity.

I have seen round brilliant I1 diamonds that were AGS 0 cut graded that looked far better to the eye than a D-IF that was AGS 6 cut graded. I am convinced that cutting it THE most important of the 4 C''s.

Wink

I respect your opinion Wink..., and somewhat agree with you...

But, I personally prefer the character options a Diamond gets when not cut perfect...
H&A just does not do it to me...

, my preference is when each Diamond has its own identifiable look..., uniform bores me..., but thats just me...

Its just interesting reading how each one of you (participating in this thread) sees and thinks a bit different on a subject that probably does not even affect ''much'' the visual appearance of the Diamond in its natural lighting options (less the tools

)....

I am not rich in knowledge on this subject..., but obviously every (Ideal or Ex.) RB Diamond changes a bit when cutting the lgf''s at different lengths (especially with the CA options which make the Ideal/Ex range)..., but it all comes to the clients own preference when choosing..., obviously the way the hearts are displayed in the (H&A) viewer does not say which Diamond is more beautiful.

oh..., and BTW..., I love and realy believe uncut Diamonds are sculptures of nature..., well at least some of them....

What do you think of this one?

I think it is wonderful!!

Now..., honestly..., which one?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/3/2008 5:23:45 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2008 5:18:44 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/3/2008 5:01:48 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2008 3:54:17 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/2/2008 7:33:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/2/2008 7:03:42 PM
Author: DiaGem

Do classify a ''true'' H&A in the same rarity level as natures VVS+ Diamond clarities?

not even close in my book as every piece of rough that will cut a round could be cut h&a no matter how many inclusions it has.

In my opinion, the cutting is far more important than the clarity.

I have seen round brilliant I1 diamonds that were AGS 0 cut graded that looked far better to the eye than a D-IF that was AGS 6 cut graded. I am convinced that cutting it THE most important of the 4 C''s.

Wink

I respect your opinion Wink..., and somewhat agree with you...

But, I personally prefer the character options a Diamond gets when not cut perfect...
H&A just does not do it to me...

, my preference is when each Diamond has its own identifiable look..., uniform bores me..., but thats just me...

Its just interesting reading how each one of you (participating in this thread) sees and thinks a bit different on a subject that probably does not even affect ''much'' the visual appearance of the Diamond in its natural lighting options (less the tools

)....

I am not rich in knowledge on this subject..., but obviously every (Ideal or Ex.) RB Diamond changes a bit when cutting the lgf''s at different lengths (especially with the CA options which make the Ideal/Ex range)..., but it all comes to the clients own preference when choosing..., obviously the way the hearts are displayed in the (H&A) viewer does not say which Diamond is more beautiful.

oh..., and BTW..., I love and realy believe uncut Diamonds are sculptures of nature..., well at least some of them....

What do you think of this one?

I think it is wonderful!!

Now..., honestly..., which one?

Gag! Please don''t tell me that ugly duckling is all they got out of that beautiful piece of rough! If it is, how sad, the rough was MUCH more appealing to me.

Wink

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/3/2008 5:25:58 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/3/2008 5:23:45 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2008 5:18:44 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/3/2008 5:01:48 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2008 3:54:17 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/2/2008 7:33:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/2/2008 7:03:42 PM
Author: DiaGem

Do classify a ''true'' H&A in the same rarity level as natures VVS+ Diamond clarities?

not even close in my book as every piece of rough that will cut a round could be cut h&a no matter how many inclusions it has.

In my opinion, the cutting is far more important than the clarity.

I have seen round brilliant I1 diamonds that were AGS 0 cut graded that looked far better to the eye than a D-IF that was AGS 6 cut graded. I am convinced that cutting it THE most important of the 4 C''s.

Wink

I respect your opinion Wink..., and somewhat agree with you...

But, I personally prefer the character options a Diamond gets when not cut perfect...
H&A just does not do it to me...

, my preference is when each Diamond has its own identifiable look..., uniform bores me..., but thats just me...

Its just interesting reading how each one of you (participating in this thread) sees and thinks a bit different on a subject that probably does not even affect ''much'' the visual appearance of the Diamond in its natural lighting options (less the tools

)....

I am not rich in knowledge on this subject..., but obviously every (Ideal or Ex.) RB Diamond changes a bit when cutting the lgf''s at different lengths (especially with the CA options which make the Ideal/Ex range)..., but it all comes to the clients own preference when choosing..., obviously the way the hearts are displayed in the (H&A) viewer does not say which Diamond is more beautiful.

oh..., and BTW..., I love and realy believe uncut Diamonds are sculptures of nature..., well at least some of them....

What do you think of this one?

I think it is wonderful!!

Now..., honestly..., which one?

Gag! Please don''t tell me that ugly duckling is all they got out of that beautiful piece of rough! If it is, how sad, the rough was MUCH more appealing to me.

Wink

Sorry for the thread jack..., but this needs to be sound...

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

"The Incomparable Diamond"

A 407.48 carats Shield Shape Step Cut...

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/3/2008 5:34:35 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2008 5:25:58 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/3/2008 5:23:45 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2008 5:18:44 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/3/2008 5:01:48 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2008 3:54:17 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/2/2008 7:33:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/2/2008 7:03:42 PM
Author: DiaGem

Do classify a ''true'' H&A in the same rarity level as natures VVS+ Diamond clarities?

not even close in my book as every piece of rough that will cut a round could be cut h&a no matter how many inclusions it has.

In my opinion, the cutting is far more important than the clarity.

I have seen round brilliant I1 diamonds that were AGS 0 cut graded that looked far better to the eye than a D-IF that was AGS 6 cut graded. I am convinced that cutting it THE most important of the 4 C''s.

Wink

I respect your opinion Wink..., and somewhat agree with you...

But, I personally prefer the character options a Diamond gets when not cut perfect...
H&A just does not do it to me...

, my preference is when each Diamond has its own identifiable look..., uniform bores me..., but thats just me...

Its just interesting reading how each one of you (participating in this thread) sees and thinks a bit different on a subject that probably does not even affect ''much'' the visual appearance of the Diamond in its natural lighting options (less the tools

)....

I am not rich in knowledge on this subject..., but obviously every (Ideal or Ex.) RB Diamond changes a bit when cutting the lgf''s at different lengths (especially with the CA options which make the Ideal/Ex range)..., but it all comes to the clients own preference when choosing..., obviously the way the hearts are displayed in the (H&A) viewer does not say which Diamond is more beautiful.

oh..., and BTW..., I love and realy believe uncut Diamonds are sculptures of nature..., well at least some of them....

What do you think of this one?

I think it is wonderful!!

Now..., honestly..., which one?

Gag! Please don''t tell me that ugly duckling is all they got out of that beautiful piece of rough! If it is, how sad, the rough was MUCH more appealing to me.

Wink

Sorry for the thread jack..., but this needs to be sound...

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

''The Incomparable Diamond''

A 407.48 carats Shield Shape Step Cut...

Then I rest my case, cutting is FAR more important than flawlessnes. Did this really come from that beautiful piece of rough?

How sad.

Wink

P.S. That is just my opinion, and my opinion would not buy much of that diamond. But it does not leave me wanting it much either.

 

[diagem]

Now just imagine how amazing the rough Diamond would sculpture....?

It came from "the fourth biggest gem quality Diamond to have been discovered (true for 1988..., but I don''t remember hearing of a larger find since...) weighing 890 carats!!!


Sometimes man makes the wrong decisions.....

 

[John P]

Date: 8/2/2008 8:26:24 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/2/2008 6:19:47 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 8/2/2008 3:46:52 PM
Author: Rhino

Simple question ... which image (left or right) demonstrates a greater degree of precision and perfection in cutting? Or to put more simply which diamond has more precise Optical Symmetry?

Rhino, I appreciate what you are illustrating (nice graphics btw)

.

Answer: There is some slight weirdness in the image on the right, and I anticipate the point of your illustration is to demonstrate that some diamonds not classified as traditional “H&A” can be superior in cut precision to some that are classified as “H&A.” In fact, you can illustrate that showing a precisely cut princess...or a precisely cut asscher...or some 60/60 makes...next to true H&A candidates. I would not expect them to be classified as traditional H&A either.

You’ve repeatedly expressed discontent with two things in the PS tutorial:

1. The introductory statement

>

2. And the word > [/i]when it appears in the tutorial.

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

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

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

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

How is about :

b] cut hearts and arrows diamonds>>

Serg,

I think that's along the correct lines. Other suggestions welcome.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/3/2008 5:01:48 PM
Author: DiaGem

I respect your opinion Wink..., and somewhat agree with you...

But, I personally prefer the character options a Diamond gets when not cut perfect...
H&A just does not do it to me...

, my preference is when each Diamond has its own identifiable look..., uniform bores me..., but thats just me...

Its just interesting reading how each one of you (participating in this thread) sees and thinks a bit different on a subject that probably does not even affect 'much' the visual appearance of the Diamond in its natural lighting options (less the tools

)....

Absolutely true DG.

Before my career in this trade I earned degrees in music performance. The outlooks of my mentors, peers & students are spookily similar to the differing opinions about diamonds, gemstones and jewelry. In music there is no “better” or “best,” stylistically, but we all argue our passions with fervor. As with diamonds, the most enlightened musicians respect diversity, no matter what their personal niche is. I love hearing your opinions because they often walk a different path than mine. Of course, I am so OCD that my affinity for precision surprises no one.

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

I think the issue on hearts and arrows is that some vendors, most of who have posted on this issue in this or the eariler thread, have been saying for a very long time that H&A's are better, or best, or they have aligned the idea of precision with the quality and therefore consumers have assumed that means they look better.

I can’t speak for everyone producing precision-cuts, but I think the words “better” and “best” are personal, not universal, with diamonds just like they are with music. Yes, I know some people consider D color or FL clarity “better” or “best” but many consumers (and diamond enthusiasts) do not. HOWEVER, the trade does place a higher value on D and IF due to their rarity.

Particularly since the H&A movement the trade places higher value on cut precision as well. Why? Because it is more rare. Why is it highly valued by some? Because the human condition is symmetrical (As BG would say... 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 nose 1 mouth etc.). Perfect facet alignment creates optical symmetry, which many people value. I do not say all people. What I can tell you from years of experience is that, without knowing differently, many consumers presume perfect symmetry is a natural goal of cutting a diamond…no different than squaring a window or making a vase circular.

And why not? It’s how humans have represented diamond drawings on paper for hundreds of years. Look at early design drawings from our history; they were drawn as perfect wire-frames even when tools could never cut so precisely. Wallis Cattelle was among the first to provide ray-tracing gaphics with perfect symmetry over a hundred years ago. Open your GIA lab manuals today; the reference graphics are perfectly symmetrical. Open DiamCalc to any shape and the default wire-frame has perfect optical symmetry. This is not an accident; symmetry is a fundamental part of the human condition.

The H&A movement in Japan was the genesis of achieving cut precision near-to perfect symmetry. They saw the potential to capitalize on the natural attraction many humans have for this kind of order; going beyond what is seen with the naked eye. It works. Show a photo of a true H&A diamond next to one that’s all snaggletoothed in a H&A viewer and it’s a no-brainer which diamond (from that limited view) has appeal to many people who like order and precision. I do not say all people.

The H&A movement continued to gain momentum because many makers combined great light performance with that rare cut precision. This is why “H&A” diamonds have an association with quality (or, the so-called “better” or “best” Garry refers to...but please see my first paragraph again). Since the advent of Eightstar and original H&As like Apollon 8, other diamonds combining great light performance and rare cut precision/symmetry have emerged and have become similarly valued, and not just in the round shape.

The traditional H&A has historical precedence. In the world of optically symmetrical diamonds that moniker has reputation, market-share and reliability – kind of like Starbucks in the coffee world... Just as the round brilliant commands a premium over other shapes (which can be just as beautiful) reputable H&A brands command a premium because of the tradition, symbolism, successful marketing, and association with top performance.

Maybe it’s because I came from outside the trade but I don’t see H&A as a “gimmick." Even if you take performance away (which you should not!) H&A is no more a “gimmick” than VVS+ clarity, which you pay for and cannot see. To some people a stone cut with rare near-to perfect symmetrical precision is their personal grail, like D or Flawless may be the grail to others. Are any of these people wrong? No, not any more than people who love jazz or classical music are “wrong” next to people in the pop mainstream. Hopefully, no matter where we hang our hat, we can respect diversity.

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

 

[Rhino]

Hi Garry,

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

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

I see diagem had brought this up but in this country there are no recognized "accepted standards". The few labs in this country I''ve seen label "Hearts & Arrows" when I''ve had the chance to see didn''t come close to the preciseness of the pattern produced by diamonds that I consider to have superior Optical Symmetry. I have not flown to every lab in Europe who has a standard and have no intention to but in this country no lab has laid out what I consider to be "accepted standards". If you''ve never read through my tutuorial then you wouldn''t know I have already created a grading system for the subject of Optical Symmetry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garry ... you''re not hearing me. I did not say lgf''s => than 80% are better. I said they are equally as beautiful. For clarification and from a purely gemological perspective, I am also stating that the Hearts pattern created by =>80% lgf''s is not inferior in any way the pattern created by 75-78%. Both are Hearts patterns just not identical. In my professional opinion one is not more truer or better than the other.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Hi agc and thanks for your response to my question. My thoughts below.

Date: 8/2/2008 5:42:52 PM
Author: agc

Jonathan, If I were looking for a diamond with the ultimate in precision/optical symmetry (when comparing the two diamond patterns your displaying in this post)I would lean toward the diamond with the cleft hearts over the true hearts one as both have symmetric hearts(I know the clefted ones are not true hearts) but the the true hearts one has variable V's suggesting azimuth shift/yaw and the V's are balanced in the clefted hearts.

Correct. I would point out one thing though agc. The expressions "true hearts" vs "clefted hearts" creates in the mind of the consumer an unconscious bias. Ie. If one is a "true" hearts all others must be "false" hearts. I personally object to the term because as has been demonstrated with the graphics I have posted previously (btw thank you John.

)... neither is a "true heart" but both coincendental patterns look like the shape of a heart more than any other every day object we can think of. Using that definition one diamond can have apparent "true hearts" yet be inferior in Optical Symmetry. The heart of the matter (pun intended) in my professional opinion is Optical Symmetry which looks not only at the patterning on the crown and pavilion but also more critical optical alignment that can result from variations in azimuth angles as well. Other than that we're totally on the same page.

I'll never forget when we first started selling Hearts & Arrows diamonds I was explaining the phenomena to the client and then when I showed them a perfectly symmetrical H&A that had a closed Hearts pattern their first comment to me was that pattern is darn symmetrical but that doesn't look like a Heart. I chuckle as I think back on this because that gentleman thought of what a real true Heart pattern looked like. True hearts have rounded rounded lobes in case anyone forgot that.

I feel overall the optical symmetry is therefore better in the clefted hearts example.(Of course everyone would also evaluate face up performance before choosing a diamond). This is where I have a problem with the H&A tutorial. The average consumer has little knowledge and the tutorial gives bias by starting off with 'The aim of this tutorial is to illustrate what it takes to achieve the ultimate in cutting precision and perfection - super ideal cut Hearts and Arrows diamonds'. IMHO this leads less knowledgable consumers to assume that the ultimate cut diamonds are super ideal H&A's and everthing else is less.

After 8 pages of the last thread you're one of the only few people who understood where I am coming from.

If the tutorial explained that this is a patterning issue and that some of the failures are due to not meeting historic patterning and not lack of cut/optical symmetry then it would be fine. It however lumps together diamonds with poor optical symmetry(missing hearts, different size hearts etc) with diamonds with perfectly symmetric clefted hearts that have just as high or higher precision/optical symmetry (as true H&A) but quickly gives them all the big 'FAIL' without explanation.

Imagine answering swarms of email each day and having to answer this same question over and over again from those who do peruse that tutorial. I was really upset to see the original thread closed before I could return from vacation but thankfully other respected experts spoke up and hence this thread. You are 110% right on with what you are saying though. In fact it is my conviction that it is discriminatory to infer to other perfectly optical designs as being somehow inferior. Solasfera cuts some super tight diamonds as well as other factories. I thank God for variety.

There is no comparison between a diamond with chaotic hearts and a diamond with perfect symmetrical clefted hearts with regard to optical symmetry yet the consumer is led to believe they are equal failures and not the ultimate like the true H&A. Since the aim of the tutorial and PS is education then clearing state/teach that this is historic patterning (not a guarantee of performance/beauty and that not all the failures are lacking in anyway the ultimate in cutting precision and perfection.(just in historic patterning).

Right on.

You see ... this personally is my problem with Hearts grading in the first place. It is going beyond the scope of real gemology and into what I would consider interior decorating. Interior decorating that in fact has no bearing on the real beauty of the diamond I might add because as has been pointed out a diamond can have a perfect Hearts pattern yet lack in optical beauty.

As I had stated previously the real issue to be garnered from a Hearts pattern relates solely and entirely to the subject of Optical Symmetry. Period. Not traditional symmetry grading, not polish grading and not even optimal proportions.

Optical Symmetry is the grand daddy ... and demonstrates only one thing (which in the mind of us analysts is an important feature as it relates directly to craftsmanship) and that one thing is precision of cutting or what strmrdr mentioned ... physical symmetry (if memory serves me right but strm will keep me in check if I didn't

)

A closed Heart pattern or what is being referred to as a true Hearts pattern is one one of many subsets that demosntrate what I would consider to be superior Optical Symmetry. If I recall strm and Allison mentioned this in the last thread. There would only be one reason to elevate one pattern over another because none of them demonstrate superior craftsmanship or light performance. That one reason would be marketing because the truth is that one pattern is not better than another and an open Hearts pattern can indeed have better light performance than a closed Hearts pattern when examined face up.

In matter of fact if 2 diamonds are cut to equal measurements and once they reach a certain diameter size, and one has slightly longer lgf's, that can optically contribute to more pin fire flash as observed in spot lighting. A feature which many consumers (including myself) happen to love very much! Where is the system that rewards the sparkle pattern for incrased spots of light?

While I'm typing ....

Regarding HRD ...

If any of you guys are reading this. I sympathize and understand your mindset. I know because there was a time I was consumed in a particular technology until consumer opinion coupled with gemological truth shocked me back into reality.

You are taking the H&A viewer and attempting to go down the rabbit hole to the greatest depth you can think of which in one sense is to be commended but in another sense you are losing sight of the real issue.

If you continue down the path you're on then YOU SHOULD disqualify a Hearts pattern because of inclusions that reflect as a result of SI's and I would add even up to VS and VVS. Granted many VS and VVS inclusions will not tarnish the pattern but I understand your goal is what you are interpreting to be a "picture perfect image" under an H&A viewer. Continuing along that line of reasoning you should also NOT ALLOW any cleft resulting from 77.x - 78.x % lower halves. In Brian's tutorial he allows up to 8%. Why compromise with that?

You see ... you are departing from real cut grading and getting into interior decorating. Why?

a. Inclusions have no bearing on cut quality.
b. One type of Hearts pattern does not in any way demonstrate superior craftsmanship.
c. One particular type of Hearts pattern does not in any way demonstrate superior light performance.

If you want to reward factories for cutting precision products that can be demonstrated via images that demonstrate Optical Symmetry, that each take equal amount of time to produce, don't put them in the box of 75-78% lower halves.

Call me crazy but I've been photographing and observing this phenomena now for 8 years and have a slight grasp on the subject.

Paul & John ... wouldn't it be nice if the precision of your princess cuts were recognized in a system that rewarded Optical Symmetry instead of the particular type of pattern it produced? Think about it.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Greetings Sir John,

Thoughts below.

Date: 8/2/2008 6:19:47 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 8/2/2008 3:46:52 PM
Author: Rhino

Simple question ... which image (left or right) demonstrates a greater degree of precision and perfection in cutting? Or to put more simply which diamond has more precise Optical Symmetry?

Rhino, I appreciate what you are illustrating (nice graphics btw)

.

I thought you would appreciate that. If you''re talking about the elementary Hearts graphics (with ducky and cake) I replaced your heart with what I consider to be a truer heart! LMAO!!!

Answer: There is some slight weirdness in the image on the right, and I anticipate the point of your illustration is to demonstrate that some diamonds not classified as traditional “H&A” can be superior in cut precision to some that are classified as “H&A.” In fact, you can illustrate that showing a precisely cut princess...or a precisely cut asscher...or some 60/60 makes...next to true H&A candidates. I would not expect them to be classified as traditional H&A either.

You should recognize the image on the right as it is the one you produced for agc but YES ... that is precisely my point. Closed Hearts does not = better precision. Most consumers don''t realize that point and agc communicated my concerns much better than I ever could. Why is this thread not stickied yet? At least until the wording is changed?

You’ve repeatedly expressed discontent with two things in the PS tutorial:

1. The introductory statement

<<The aim of this tutorial is to illustrate what it takes to achieve the ultimate in cutting precision and perfection - super ideal cut Hearts and Arrows diamonds>>

2. And the word <<fails>> when it appears in the tutorial.

Not only me but consumers as well. While I hope to be considered a pertinent voice here it is their voice that is most important. Without the consumers this place is nada and I say lets REMOVE ONCE AND FOR ALL THE CONFUSION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. Absolutely.

I have ideas of where we should begin but perhaps we can use this medium to discuss but first I have to install my graphics program on this home computer.

Peace,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/3/2008 3:54:17 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/2/2008 7:33:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/2/2008 7:03:42 PM
Author: DiaGem

Do classify a ''true'' H&A in the same rarity level as natures VVS+ Diamond clarities?

not even close in my book as every piece of rough that will cut a round could be cut h&a no matter how many inclusions it has.

In my opinion, the cutting is far more important than the clarity.

I have seen round brilliant I1 diamonds that were AGS 0 cut graded that looked far better to the eye than a D-IF that was AGS 6 cut graded. I am convinced that cutting it THE most important of the 4 C''s.

Wink

However Wink, rareity has a value also, and it would be very hard to change peoples minds because I feel the way we value rareity is almost impossible to seperate in terms of nature vs nuture in the human mind and perception.

Besides the AGS 6 DIF can always be recut to a smaller stone if people really placed more value on cut.

And that brings me to the point worth making - cut is more valued now than it was a decade ago - I would love to find a way to prove that, but we all know it because cut quality has improved a lot in that time.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/2/2008 6:23:43 PM
Author: adamasgem
Seems to me a merchant out there wants to redefine what is supposedly called a ''good'' H&A cut for his/her own convenience, independent of the relative merits of the redefinition.

Not quite my friend. I am against discrimination for equally perfect optical designs. I HAVE A DREAM!.

1) First, NO ONE has yet defined the parameters, for example, does a stone need to be seen in X''s viewer or Y''s viewer or is the definition based on a flawed measurement rendering?

2) Then, is the image scaled to a fixed angle viewer

3) I don''t think one merchant has the right to redefine what has been accepted for so long, maybe that merchant has the better widget, then prove it by performance measures.H&A is a sales gimmic which also showed symmetry and precision cutting, IT DID NOT say anything about relative performance.

Exactly the point. In my professional opinion the focus should be on what the pattern shows ... we already know its Optical Symmetry. That is where I am suggesting the focus lie. This way it would not matter if the diamond was photographed in my viewer, your viewer or whoevers''s ... a precision cut diamond will show perfect alignment no matter what viewer you put it into.

If some people like long LGFs then their stones probably won''t be called top end H&A''s, too bad for them, and if they try to call them that, they might wind up with a civil fraud case in their lap one orf these days, and then they will decide to stop what appears to be misrepresentation. Very nicely cut stones, but don''t make the very ill, and possibly poorly defined criteria for H&A''s.

Define top end. It does not take more time or effort to cut a closed heart pattern than an open heart.

Peace,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,

please read blue answers Rhino

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/3/2008 8:35:17 PM
Author: Rhino
Greetings Sir John,

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

With references in many patents, including AGS and GIA and references in Gems & Gemology

You confuse authority of an individual or organizations opinion with the authority of a resource that faciltates opinions Rhino - there is quite a distinction.

GIA has ''opinions'' and is an authority
Gems & Gemology is a venue where works and opinions are presented, but has no opinion''s of its own.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/3/2008 8:48:13 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/3/2008 3:54:17 PM

Author: Wink

Date: 8/2/2008 7:33:55 PM

Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/2/2008 7:03:42 PM

Author: DiaGem


Do classify a ''true'' H&A in the same rarity level as natures VVS+ Diamond clarities?

not even close in my book as every piece of rough that will cut a round could be cut h&a no matter how many inclusions it has.

In my opinion, the cutting is far more important than the clarity.


I have seen round brilliant I1 diamonds that were AGS 0 cut graded that looked far better to the eye than a D-IF that was AGS 6 cut graded. I am convinced that cutting it THE most important of the 4 C''s.


Wink

However Wink, rareity has a value also, and it would be very hard to change peoples minds because I feel the way we value rareity is almost impossible to seperate in terms of nature vs nuture in the human mind and perception.


Besides the AGS 6 DIF can always be recut to a smaller stone if people really placed more value on cut.


And that brings me to the point worth making - cut is more valued now than it was a decade ago - I would love to find a way to prove that, but we all know it because cut quality has improved a lot in that time.

Garry,

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

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

Wink

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/3/2008 9:16:07 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

GIA has ''opinions'' and is an authority GIA is a self proclaimed "authority" who often makes mistakes, they are human, whether they think so or not.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

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


Garry,

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

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

Wink

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

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

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

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

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

 

[adamasgem]

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

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

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

That's the problem Garry, even the "professionals" don't care until it winds up biting them in the butt by treating their "opinions" as expressed warranties.
And who knows, they just may wind up getting their butts deservedly reamed over Certifigate.

And who knows, their "opinions" may wind up being treated like "warranties" by the courts, given their public touting of their paper as the "last" word.

 

[Rhino]

Greetings John,

Date: 8/2/2008 6:56:25 PM
Author: John Pollard
AGC, your post also reminded me of a good point; the fact that all of these things are valued differently by different people.

I don''t think optical symmetry is any more a ''gimmick'' (hi Marty

) than VVS+ clarity. Some people like the ''idea'' of clarity at the top of the scale. There are also people who like the ''idea'' of cut precision at the top of the scale. In fact, when coupled with great light return there are aspects of optical symmetry that are visible in performance, so I think the H&A movement - and optical symmetry in non-H&A rounds and other shapes - is less a gimmick than high clarity; which you pay for but will not possibly see.

With the above said, I have respect for whatever attributes make a person happy, personally.

Responding from my home computer but case in point. I recently had 2 diamonds in my hands. Both GIA Ex. Both with 34.5/41.0. One had precise Opticaly Symmetry the other didn''t. Ray trace exam through PGS resulted in one being AGS Ideal the other AGS 3 and YES there was a visible difference. The primary difference between the 2 ... Optical Symmetry.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/2/2008 7:38:19 PM
Author: strmrdr
The question of why it was set at 80% still hasn''t been answered.
That''s a rather important question.

Me too.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/2/2008 7:47:38 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/2/2008 6:51:37 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/2/2008 5:20:44 AM
Author: Serg

re:Every knowledgeable person on the subject (gemologist and layman) disagrees. Perfection & precision of cut can be identified by more than one optically symmetrical pattern and in no way is limited to 75-78% lower halves. To suggest otherwise is misleading information. I carry various types of precision cut diamonds that produce different optical patterns and I can show you diamonds with open hearts cut with much greater precision than some with closed hearts.

Rhino, Wink( or anybody)
Lets do REAL steps to check it.



I am waiting round diamond with bad symmetry ( 5.75-5.85 , VS-SI1, G-F) for what has same or better performance than H&A
We will do research and publish result and method of research. Anybody will have possibility repeat and check or results



You can also send Fancy diamonds for tests( but I do not promise what we will buy it for our MSS collection)

Do anybody want do input except discussions ?
Only 3 companies invest to MSS now( OctoNus, Lexus, Garry)
Again money is not most important issue , we need interesting samples.
A lot of persons are telling what they sell Best diamonds, where are these diamonds?

Serg, are you running optimal/optical symmetry tests on all fancy shaped diamonds or just symmetrical even squares or shapes?
Is it even possible to run test on asymmetrical fancies? Can you decide on a common or average symmetrically contrast appearance on these shapes?

Diagem,

My task is to find ( or create) colorless fancy diamonds which has (obviously better for most consumers):
1) Total performance
2) Fire
3) Scintillation

It could be different fancy diamonds in each Category

I do not do any limitation in symmetry for such tests, but consumers usually prefer symmetrical diamonds

Sergey ... I am currently working with a factory that will be producing 3 traditional fancy shapes cut with precise optical symmetry and was told they will have H&A patterning. I haven''t physically seen them yet to confirm this but was told they are coming soon. If you would like a particular clarity/color/size of these contact me personally and I''ll keep you up to speed.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/3/2008 5:01:48 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2008 3:54:17 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/2/2008 7:33:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/2/2008 7:03:42 PM
Author: DiaGem

Do classify a ''true'' H&A in the same rarity level as natures VVS+ Diamond clarities?

not even close in my book as every piece of rough that will cut a round could be cut h&a no matter how many inclusions it has.

In my opinion, the cutting is far more important than the clarity.

I have seen round brilliant I1 diamonds that were AGS 0 cut graded that looked far better to the eye than a D-IF that was AGS 6 cut graded. I am convinced that cutting it THE most important of the 4 C''s.

Wink

I respect your opinion Wink..., and somewhat agree with you...

But, I personally prefer the character options a Diamond gets when not cut perfect...
H&A just does not do it to me...

, my preference is when each Diamond has its own identifiable look..., uniform bores me..., but thats just me...

Its just interesting reading how each one of you (participating in this thread) sees and thinks a bit different on a subject that probably does not even affect ''much'' the visual appearance of the Diamond in its natural lighting options (less the tools

)....

I am not rich in knowledge on this subject..., but obviously every (Ideal or Ex.) RB Diamond changes a bit when cutting the lgf''s at different lengths (especially with the CA options which make the Ideal/Ex range)..., but it all comes to the clients own preference when choosing..., obviously the way the hearts are displayed in the (H&A) viewer does not say which Diamond is more beautiful.

oh..., and BTW..., I love and realy believe uncut Diamonds are sculptures of nature..., well at least some of them....

What do you think of this one?

Awesome DG. What''s the weight on that one?