True Hearts - Technical discussion

[diagem]

Date: 8/5/2008 4:12:29 PM
Author: John Pollard
I believe you''re thinking of Zenhokyo DG. Another well-known Japanese lab is CGL.

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

Interesting..., is this Yamashita still in business these days?

Thanks for the correct spelling

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/5/2008 4:12:29 PM
Author: John Pollard
I believe you''re thinking of Zenhokyo DG. Another well-known Japanese lab is CGL.

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

Interesting. I''ll read through the link. Since Apollon 8 was mimicking 8* I would venture to say they were most likely cutting their lower halves around the 75-76% zone. Do you know what the original H&A''s were being cut at?

All the best,

 

[purrfectpear]

As a consumer I believe using the terms "ultimate" and "fail" indeed DO mislead the average consumer. A simple description of H and A which says that it is a specific, traditional, optical cut along with the performance advantages should be sufficient. A further mention that there are other optically symmetrical precision diamond cuts which are not traditional H and A, but share equal performance advantages is more accurate.

If it is not the intention to mislead consumers into thinking that only a traditional H and A cut is the ultimate (as in cannot be surpassed in performance) in performance then this wording SHOULD be revised.

 

[Rhino]

Hi John,

Very good history. I did catch that from the last thread.

What I am referring to was the discovery of the pattern itself. Ie. EightStar''s weren''t necessarily being cut for H&A patterning perse because emphasis was being placed upon cutting for the FireScope. The particular type of pattern on the pavilion wasn''t the goal. The patterning was the natural result of cutting certain proportion combinations combined with precise Optical Symmetry. Till this day 8* cutting and the art of Allison Von Sternberg still stands, at least in my mind among the finest craftsladies (

) of all time when it comes to cutting for Optical Symmetry.

I am trying to recall, in my own mind the initial discovery of the Hearts pattern itself. If I''m not mistaken I believe the "arrows" was discovered first by someone cupping the the diamond and observing it face up. Perhaps the hearts were discovered after the H&A viewer? Do you know any details about the initial discovery of the patterning?

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/5/2008 6:16:32 PM
Author: purrfectpear
As a consumer I believe using the terms ''ultimate'' and ''fail'' indeed DO mislead the average consumer. A simple description of H and A which says that it is a specific, traditional, optical cut along with the performance advantages should be sufficient. A further mention that there are other optically symmetrical precision diamond cuts which are not traditional H and A, but share equal performance advantages is more accurate.

If it is not the intention to mislead consumers into thinking that only a traditional H and A cut is the ultimate (as in cannot be surpassed in performance) in performance then this wording SHOULD be revised.

Another consumer.

Absolutely pp. Especially when the same blood, sweat and tears are put into producing the same level of precision and care in making the product. It is my conviction that either cutter should be rewarded equally. One should not be rewarded more than the other (with regards to an Optical Symmetry grade) because of the type of pattern they produced. One pattern may be older and more traditional, nothing taking away from its historicity, but both took equal effort. This is where I believe the labs grading hearts are completely missing the boat. They should be focusing on what it was that produced the pattern in the first place ... Optical Symmetry and perhaps a notation of the type of pattern produced if they were to develope names for the patterns etc. Traditional hearts being one subset. If a cutter is producing precisely cut princess cuts, ovals, cushions, *whatever* ... reward them equally and not just the facility producing only one pattern. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Peace,

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 8/5/2008 6:23:10 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi John,

Very good history. I did catch that from the last thread.

What I am referring to was the discovery of the pattern itself. Ie. EightStar''s weren''t necessarily being cut for H&A patterning perse because emphasis was being placed upon cutting for the FireScope. The particular type of pattern on the pavilion wasn''t the goal. The patterning was the natural result of cutting certain proportion combinations combined with precise Optical Symmetry. Till this day 8* cutting and the art of Allison Von Sternberg still stands, at least in my mind among the finest craftsladies (

) of all time when it comes to cutting for Optical Symmetry.

I am trying to recall, in my own mind the initial discovery of the Hearts pattern itself. If I''m not mistaken I believe the ''arrows'' was discovered first by someone cupping the the diamond and observing it face up. Perhaps the hearts were discovered after the H&A viewer? Do you know any details about the initial discovery of the patterning?

Peace,

A woman diamond cutter

Are they rather rare, or are there more than I thought?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/5/2008 6:16:32 PM
Author: purrfectpear
As a consumer I believe using the terms ''ultimate'' and ''fail'' indeed DO mislead the average consumer. A simple description of H and A which says that it is a specific, traditional, optical cut along with the performance advantages should be sufficient. A further mention that there are other optically symmetrical precision diamond cuts which are not traditional H and A, but share equal performance advantages is more accurate.

If it is not the intention to mislead consumers into thinking that only a traditional H and A cut is the ultimate (as in cannot be surpassed in performance) in performance then this wording SHOULD be revised.

The only one who might be misleading the consumer is an overzealous salesman. A Chevy is NOT a Cadillac, and you can''t make it one, by changing the label. And a Cadillac may not be the best performer overall.

Perfect H&A symmetry or acceptable pattern (the other thread gave HRD''s definitions) DO NOT NECESSARILY mean the stone is a superior performer in all respects. see https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/true-hearts-is-this-stone-a-true-heart.90360/page-4 for the range of potential cuts that could yield H&A patterning.

Now if someone would take the time to accepted generate performance measures for the range of CA/Tab/PA and yes LGF''s, then we''d all learn something. I seriously doubt they would all be AGS 0''s and within each green block there would be an optima, depending on what performance measure you chose to believe.

Confused, yup, you can be.

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

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

I imagine you are even more confused by now.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/5/2008 5:33:39 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/5/2008 4:12:29 PM
Author: John Pollard
I believe you're thinking of Zenhokyo DG. Another well-known Japanese lab is CGL.

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

Interesting. I'll read through the link. Since Apollon 8 was mimicking 8* I would venture to say they were most likely cutting their lower halves around the 75-76% zone. Do you know what the original H&A's were being cut at?

All the best,

Read below.

Date: 8/5/2008 6:23:10 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi John,

Very good history. I did catch that from the last thread.

What I am referring to was the discovery of the pattern itself. Ie. EightStar's weren't necessarily being cut for H&A patterning perse because emphasis was being placed upon cutting for the FireScope. The particular type of pattern on the pavilion wasn't the goal. The patterning was the natural result of cutting certain proportion combinations combined with precise Optical Symmetry. Till this day 8* cutting and the art of Allison Von Sternberg still stands, at least in my mind among the finest craftsladies (

) of all time when it comes to cutting for Optical Symmetry.

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

I am trying to recall, in my own mind the initial discovery of the Hearts pattern itself. If I'm not mistaken I believe the 'arrows' was discovered first by someone cupping the the diamond and observing it face up. Perhaps the hearts were discovered after the H&A viewer? Do you know any details about the initial discovery of the patterning?

It’s arguable about who was first to use structured illumination concepts to observe symmetrical cutting.

I recall information, on PS or elsewhere, citing that the Russians were the first to dabble in this. Maybe someone had a red vodka shot glass and a diamond?

In any event it’s certain that there were proportions loupes like the red-ringed Zeiss proportion loupe dating back to the early 1970s - or before.

There is little doubt that Kazumi Okuda is the father of modern reflector technology. He had a diamond grading microscope, developed in the 1970s and 80s which was used to judge cut, but it is not an ancestor of reflectors. It employed green lighting for aligning the diamond, could show a “fingerprint” of the diamond at a unique angle for future identification and had a “brilliancy” metric assigned by using printed guidelines. However there was no backlighting and no judgment of optical symmetry as I recall. The scope was used to grade cut, clarity and color with a number of interesting features included. Neil Beaty actually owns one of these and could tell you more about it.

Later, Okuda's work with Shigetomi and Eightstar followed in the steps of the red Zeiss-type loupes. He evolved a structured red-reflector with backlighting for Eightstar which became the Firescope. This was the inspiration for the Gilbertson, Ideal-Scope and ASET...and has resulted in the first cut grading system to receive scientific peer-review and acclamation, just last year. Mr. Okuda should be extremely proud - as should Al Gilbertson, Garry Holloway, Dr. Sasian and the AGS Labs, who have had a key role in bringing reflector technology along.

Now, although the history above is nice, it really has nothing to do with the hearts pattern.

...Taking a page from Eightstar’s capitalization on the human preoccupation with symmetry, our friend Mr Yamashita capitalized on the way diamonds with precision-cutting would appear if both the pavilion (it’s harder to create precise patterns there) and the crown were observed for precision-cutting. I don’t have data for Eightstar diamonds from the initial Japanese production, but as you know they settled in at and around 75% lower halves; some too short to show the traditional hearts pattern. I am sure in the initial days that there were specimens cut above and below that number.

When Yamashita purchased the remaining Eightstar-clones and re-branded them as "Hearts & Arrows" with Apollon 8 he had to recut some of them. I presume this included diamonds with shorter lower halves, and he recut them to show a proper hearts pattern in order to maintain his brand's identity. Between Eightstar, featuring symbolism and crown precision - and the H&A diamond brands that sprang up, featuring symbolism and precision in both crown & pavilion - precision-cutting became a huge movement. So popular that some of the Japanese labs integrated grading of H&A as a critical component.

Anyone interested in the marketing and symbolism as it came to America can read this post (skip down a bit, it's long).
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/true-hearts-is-this-stone-a-true-heart.90360/page-4

The movement resonated elsewhere around the world too. Paul and Brian can tell you about the Antwerp cutters who became aware of this new “fad” and some of the very interesting stories about the productions and whatnot.

I don’t know if this helps Rhino, but that’s a cursory version of my understanding - from geeking out with cut gurus over beer on a few different continents. Here is a graphic, below, showing a rudimentary timeline of reflectors.

[/i]

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/5/2008 6:23:10 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi John,

Very good history. I did catch that from the last thread.

What I am referring to was the discovery of the pattern itself. Ie. EightStar''s weren''t necessarily being cut for H&A patterning perse because emphasis was being placed upon cutting for the FireScope. The particular type of pattern on the pavilion wasn''t the goal. The patterning was the natural result of cutting certain proportion combinations combined with precise Optical Symmetry. Till this day 8* cutting and the art of Allison Von Sternberg still stands, at least in my mind among the finest craftsladies (

) of all time when it comes to cutting for Optical Symmetry.

I am trying to recall, in my own mind the initial discovery of the Hearts pattern itself. If I''m not mistaken I believe the ''arrows'' was discovered first by someone cupping the the diamond and observing it face up. Perhaps the hearts were discovered after the H&A viewer? Do you know any details about the initial discovery of the patterning?

Peace,

I believe it was actually discovered before that by the inventor of the firescope, whose name I am not recalling. The firescope will not show hearts well, so I do not have any idea when or by whom that was discovered.

I reserve the right to be wrong about the arrows too, that is just what I am recalling.

I do know that the Arrows have great significance to the Japanese and Chinese as they represent the octagonal pattern of the I Ching. This is a design said to have developed in the shells of devine turtles and is one of the principle patterns in Chinese astrology. The arrows also have great similarity to the Rinbo, which is the symbol of The Buddha. It is important not to confuse the Rinbo with the Rhino as it is unknown what might come of such confusion...

Of lesser known symbology is the Aztec calendar which sports an eight rayed symbol representing the sun.

I read these things about the symbology of the arrows years ago in the Eight Star Diamond Story, a book about the evolution of the EightStar Diamond by Takanori Tamura.

Wink

 

[John P]

Date: 8/5/2008 6:16:32 PM
Author: purrfectpear

If it is not the intention to mislead consumers into thinking that only a traditional H and A cut is the ultimate (as in cannot be surpassed in performance) in performance then this wording SHOULD be revised.

I don't think Pricescope's intention is ever to mislead. The terms that have been misconstrued should be easy to revise.

A woman diamond cutter

Are they rather rare, or are there more than I thought?

They are rare, but those who ascend the ranks are highly considered. Alison VS is such a maven. On PS you may recall photos/discussion of Lieve Peeters. She graduated at the top of her class at the Antwerp polishing school and ascended to become Coordinator of the Diamond Expert Division for the Belgian ministry of economic affairs and customs. To this day she keeps weekly hours as Judicial Expert with the Belgian Federal Police. Celebrities in the house.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think the very breif history in the main tutorial covers off a lot of this discussion

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/hna.asp

Date: 8/5/2008 7:55:45 PM
Author: John Pollard

Read below.

I don’t know if this helps Rhino, but that’s a cursory version of my understanding - from geeking out with cut gurus over beer on a few different continents. Here is a graphic, below, showing a rudimentary timeline of reflectors.

Re the history graphic you posted John, for the record, I used the Firescope in lectures

at the GAA diamond diploma course from 1986 onwards, and at some stage in the late 1980''s I introduced a bright orange or a bright green

fluoro card board ring that sat beneath the pink reflector to show students that different cut qualities drew light from different areas. Technically this means I can do whatever I want with multi coloured scopes since I have plenty of student witnesses without breaching al''s and AGS''s patent rights. (but I prefer there to be as many people doing things to improve diamond cutting).

I also made portable versions of the Firescopetm with map readers around the same time and used them secretively in my diamond buying. I have a Indian vendor who still uses one of my Swiss map readers to this day as they got used to it for selecting small stones - here is a picture of one that I keep in my top desk drawer for no particular reason. They do not work well on +2ct stones bTW. So technically the Ideal-scope has been around longer than H&A''s viewers if your date is correct

 

[John P]

Thanks a lot Garry. I will add to my notes - and buy you a beer if I can interview you formally on the topic at our next gathering.

Date: 8/5/2008 8:46:42 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

So technically the Ideal-scope has been around longer than H&A's viewers if your date is correct

While the H&A viewer was patented in 1990 I'm rather sure it was mussed-about-with before then, even if just at wild diamantaire frat parties, and if you want to get ticky-tack about it I'm rather certain someone thought to flip a diamond table-down and use a Zeiss-loupe yeeeears before Yamashita was "official."

Publish, trademark, patent and copyright dates are important but I'll give you credit for the "idea-scope" when you were still wearing bellbottoms.

here is a picture of one that I keep in my top desk drawer for no particular reason.

...perhaps one day the power will be shut down at Melbourne Intl Airport and you will save the day.

 

[adamasgem]

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

Confused, yup, you can be.

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

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

I imagine you are even more confused by now.

All well and good the history of contrast enhancement devices, but it only serves to obsfucate the issue above. How did the H&A viewer progress from the patented design (and angles) to a "standardized" one used by HRD, and does the HRD "standard" account for stone size?. Can anyone answer that question?

Sergey is perhaps the only one who could model the various standards and show what difference it makes.

 

[arjunajane]

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

Date: 8/5/2008 6:16:32 PM
Author: purrfectpear
As a consumer I believe using the terms ''ultimate'' and ''fail'' indeed DO mislead the average consumer. A simple description of H and A which says that it is a specific, traditional, optical cut along with the performance advantages should be sufficient. A further mention that there are other optically symmetrical precision diamond cuts which are not traditional H and A, but share equal performance advantages is more accurate.

If it is not the intention to mislead consumers into thinking that only a traditional H and A cut is the ultimate (as in cannot be surpassed in performance) in performance then this wording SHOULD be revised.

The only one who might be misleading the consumer is an overzealous salesman. A Chevy is NOT a Cadillac, and you can''t make it one, by changing the label. And a Cadillac may not be the best performer overall.

Perfect H&A symmetry or acceptable pattern (the other thread gave HRD''s definitions) DO NOT NECESSARILY mean the stone is a superior performer in all respects. see https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/true-hearts-is-this-stone-a-true-heart.90360/page-4 for the range of potential cuts that could yield H&A patterning.

Now if someone would take the time to accepted generate performance measures for the range of CA/Tab/PA and yes LGF''s, then we''d all learn something. I seriously doubt they would all be AGS 0''s and within each green block there would be an optima, depending on what performance measure you chose to believe.

Confused, yup, you can be.

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

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

I imagine you are even more confused by now.

Marty, I believe you are missing the point...!
Please correct me if I''m wrong, but I understand the crux of this discussion boils down to whether the PS H&A tut requires to be re-written or no.
The reason why the tutorial exists and why it may need to be re assessed is for Consumers.. its not for you experts - you know way more and don''t need it.

Various consumers have posted on this and the last thread that: despite the fact we acknowledge it is not the intention, nonetheless the tut may very well mislead those with basic understanding (99.9% of buying population

) into believing that patterning is = performance.
Hence, anything that receives a FAIL is a bad performer (ie. longer lower lgf etc).
Now - you know this is not true, I know, as do most others who stick around on this board.
But do the hundreds who lurk or just pass through? - No!

I am not saying that Rhino''s argument is correct. I do not have enough technical knowledge to make that call.
But I do know the consumers'' POV. I appreciate the history and technical aspects you have put forth, but they are only further clouding the issue at heart, imo.

This is just my opinion further to my earlier post, where I said I appreciate and sympathize with both sides of this discussion.

peace, AJ.

 

[Rhino]

Thanks John.

Actually after reading that I recalled some of my prior conversations with Al Gilbertson and I think I may possibly have the very first Hearts picture ever taken thanks to Al''s contribution in my articles on Reflector Based technology. In the "History" portion of our articles on the subject, if you''ve never seen I happen to have the original documentation, grading parameters, graphics and nomenclature that came with the original Okuda microscope as well as original FireScope, and perhaps more pertinent to this conversation graphics and commentary of Kinsaku Yamashita''s very first Hearts & Arrows viewer and patents. One of those graphics depict what has come to be known as the Hearts pattern. Being a fellow geek I thought you might appreciate this.

More to come as time allows today...

 

[Rhino]

A woman diamond cutter

Are they rather rare, or are there more than I thought?

Rare indeed pp. Equally rare is her humble and sweet personality.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 8/5/2008 2:19:12 PM
Author: John Pollard

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

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

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

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

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

Ooh look. A consumer!

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

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

Hey John - just saw this, lol!
I have been reading this thread with interest since the beginning, and although my understanding is definately basic, I sure do like learning more from you "cut geeks"

I feel the info (history, technical discussion) in this thread is valuable - but you and I both know not alot of consumers will read all of these discussions - and if they're like me, there will still be alot we can not completely absorb.

Which essentially brings me back to my point (further to your common-sense suggestion

) - the experts here may be giving your "average" consumer too much credit to be able to separate (in the PS H&A tutorial) between the historical issue of patterning and the topic of performance. (Please see my post above..)

I don't desire a longer lower lgf stone - my eyes preferred the *more traditional* variety, so please be aware my POV is not biased here.
I am simply playing devils' advocate, in this case that of the *average* diamond buyer just moving through PS on their way to a purchase...

cheers
AJ

 

[stone_seeker]

Just wanted to add even as a consumer I think this thread is great and very informatiive. I''ve become fascinated with the technology and history of all types of cuts and techniques and so this has been a great read.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/6/2008 9:58:59 AM
Author: arjunajane

Marty, I believe you are missing the point...!
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand the crux of this discussion boils down to whether the PS H&A tut requires to be re-written or no.
The reason why the tutorial exists and why it may need to be re assessed is for Consumers.. its not for you experts - you know way more and don't need it.

Various consumers have posted on this and the last thread that: despite the fact we acknowledge it is not the intention, nonetheless the tut may very well mislead those with basic understanding (99.9% of buying population

) into believing that patterning is = performance.
Hence, anything that receives a FAIL is a bad performer (ie. longer lower lgf etc).
Now - you know this is not true, I know, as do most others who stick around on this board.
But do the hundreds who lurk or just pass through? - No!

I am not saying that Rhino's argument is correct. I do not have enough technical knowledge to make that call.
But I do know the consumers' POV. I appreciate the history and technical aspects you have put forth, but they are only further clouding the issue at heart, imo.

This is just my opinion further to my earlier post, where I said I appreciate and sympathize with both sides of this discussion.

peace, AJ.

OK, Perhaps a technical preface to the H&A tutorial needs to be added like:

" 'TRUE' H&A diamonds exhibit a defined pattern (or pattern range/characteristics) which may or may not relate to a specific quality or level of performance measure(s).

In general, it must be noted, within certain parameter sets, optical symmetry, like that exhibited by 'TRUE' H&A's, lead to generally better overall performance measures.

To date, there have been no published studies relating any level of "accepted" performance measure(s) to stones which fall within the classic defined realms of 'TRUE' H&A patterned diamonds or those newer H&A "standards" recently proposed by HRD or other laboratories, which may or may not be looser than those explained in this tutorial.

The same limitations may be said of those stones which technically FAIL what are long established patterning requirements for 'TRUE' H&A stones. "


I do agree with tutorial premise that:

"Stones that do not conform to these standards cannot be called TRUE Hearts and Arrows. There should be no variation in both the hearts and the arrow patterns. Quality A, B, C or 1, 2, 3 do not exist. They are either TRUE Hearts and Arrows diamonds or they are NOT. These standards need to be maintained just as they have in Japan where the standard was set and I believe all should maintain."

 

[John P]

Date: 8/6/2008 9:02:09 AM
Author: adamasgem

All well and good the history of contrast enhancement devices, but it only serves to obsfucate the issue above. How did the H&A viewer progress from the patented design (and angles) to a 'standardized' one used by HRD, and does the HRD 'standard' account for stone size?. Can anyone answer that question?

Ok Marty. I'll take it on the chin for walking down memory lane, but the highlighted is not the primary issue either (yet). I'd say Arjunajane and purrfect summarized the issue-at-hand; being clear for consumers.

Once the existing tutorial is clear - along the lines of what you put in red above - we can discuss standardization of viewers until we're blue, red or purple (choose your favorite filament paper color) in the face.

 

[John P]

Date: 8/6/2008 10:07:38 AM
Author: Rhino
Thanks John.

Actually after reading that I recalled some of my prior conversations with Al Gilbertson and I think I may possibly have the very first Hearts picture ever taken thanks to Al's contribution in my articles on Reflector Based technology. In the 'History' portion of our articles on the subject, if you've never seen I happen to have the original documentation, grading parameters, graphics and nomenclature that came with the original Okuda microscope as well as original FireScope, and perhaps more pertinent to this conversation graphics and commentary of Kinsaku Yamashita's very first Hearts & Arrows viewer and patents. One of those graphics depict what has come to be known as the Hearts pattern. Being a fellow geek I thought you might appreciate this.

More to come as time allows today...

You're welcome, and I am interested. That's a nice historical write-up. It jogged my memory – I thought Neil had sent me the pages I have on the Okuda Diamond Grading Microscope but all of them were actually posted on Pricescope by Fred Heinrichs some years ago. There are 13 pages there if you're interested in adding to your tutorial.

Here is the thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/kazumi-okudas-other-invention.18330/

Garry gives partial pages from the manual - Fred posts the entire thing on pages 2-3. There is some very cool stuff there, including some old patents, and it was nice of Neil to take those photos in his ODGM.

I’m glad to have re-read the thread because I'm reminded that Raffaele Zancanella, who once represented Okuda’s microscopes in Europe, confirmed that he developed an instrument along the lines of Gilbertson-scope in Italy without realizing others were pursuing it in Japan and the US at the same time. Some diamond photos taken with that instrument (one of the earliest-such tools to exist) are posted on page 2 by D Riley.

As I understand it, the H&A viewer was patented by Yamashita in Japan in 1990 and a similar device was patented in Japan and the US in 1994-1995 by H. Kobayashi. I have scans somewhere, but forget which patent they are for. I do have some of those early B&W pavilion views that show "hearts" as it were. Interesting that HRD has also chosen black & white for their standardized viewer.

Sorry Marty. I can't help myself.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 8/6/2008 11:41:45 AM
Author: John Pollard

and a similar device was patented in Japan and the US in 1994-1995 by H. Kobayashi.

What do you make of the rumors that this later device was swallowed by mistake!

P.S. Source docs...

 

[Serg]

re:As I understand it, the H&A viewer was patented by Yamashita in Japan in 1990 and a similar device was patented in Japan and the US in 1994-1995 by H. Kobayashi. I have scans somewhere, but forget which patent they are for. I do have some of those early B&W pavilion views that show "hearts" as it were. Interesting that HRD has also chosen black & white for their standardized viewer.

Sorry Marty. I can't help myself.

John,
Has anybody H&A patent in Belgium?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/6/2008 2:45:47 PM
Author: Serg

re:As I understand it, the H&A viewer was patented by Yamashita in Japan in 1990 and a similar device was patented in Japan and the US in 1994-1995 by H. Kobayashi. I have scans somewhere, but forget which patent they are for. I do have some of those early B&W pavilion views that show ''hearts'' as it were. Interesting that HRD has also chosen black & white for their standardized viewer.

Sorry Marty. I can''t help myself.

John,
Has anybody H&A patent in Belgium?

Serg: It is probably a waste of time and money to try to do it, as it is prior art both in Japan and the US, therefore it would be a useless patent, even if granted, which I doubt.

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/6/2008 2:53:34 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/6/2008 2:45:47 PM
Author: Serg

re:As I understand it, the H&A viewer was patented by Yamashita in Japan in 1990 and a similar device was patented in Japan and the US in 1994-1995 by H. Kobayashi. I have scans somewhere, but forget which patent they are for. I do have some of those early B&W pavilion views that show ''hearts'' as it were. Interesting that HRD has also chosen black & white for their standardized viewer.

Sorry Marty. I can''t help myself.

John,
Has anybody H&A patent in Belgium?

Serg: It is probably a waste of time and money to try to do it, as it is prior art both in Japan and the US, therefore it would be a useless patent, even if granted, which I doubt.

Marty,
I do not need H&A patent.
It was answer on your question (HRD)

 

[John P]

Date: 8/6/2008 4:25:35 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/6/2008 2:53:34 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/6/2008 2:45:47 PM
Author: Serg

re:As I understand it, the H&A viewer was patented by Yamashita in Japan in 1990 and a similar device was patented in Japan and the US in 1994-1995 by H. Kobayashi. I have scans somewhere, but forget which patent they are for. I do have some of those early B&W pavilion views that show 'hearts' as it were. Interesting that HRD has also chosen black & white for their standardized viewer.


Sorry Marty. I can't help myself.

John,
Has anybody H&A patent in Belgium?

Serg: It is probably a waste of time and money to try to do it, as it is prior art both in Japan and the US, therefore it would be a useless patent, even if granted, which I doubt.

Marty,
I do not need H&A patent.
It was answer on your question (HRD)

Sergey, I suspect this would fall under the auspices of the EPO. I looked it up and they have been around since before those H&A viewer patents were filed in other countries. Is there a way to search their database? Just musing - it would be wild if someone found something from the European continent pre-dating the Japanese patent. Very unlikely, but a fun quest.

Maybe some of our friends across the pond can help (it’s late evening for them right now though).

 

[Rhino]

Hey senor John,

Reading and just some questions...

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

Interesting. Where in fact did Yamashita say this?

Reading through what you and Wink have written is causing me to recall conversations with Al Gilbertson who provided me with the data in our article covering the history of reflectors.

Before the introduction of the H&A viewer by Yamashita in 1990, a company JDM, were the first to market the FireScope and while they did emphasize the 8 pointed star it appears they were not so much concerned for the precise (optical) symmetry of that 8 pointed star as much as the fact that it was present. Here is the original graphic that is held up as "the example" top grade in what they broke down into 7 grades labeled Ideal, A-F.

The presence of the star and the accentuation of the red/black balance. This is dating back to 1984 from the original FireScope manual.

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

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

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

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks John for digging up that old old thread.
Consumers there has been a re-write under way for a few days.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/5/2008 8:46:42 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I think the very breif history in the main tutorial covers off a lot of this discussion

http://diamonds.pricescope.com/hna.asp

Date: 8/5/2008 7:55:45 PM
Author: John Pollard

Read below.

I don’t know if this helps Rhino, but that’s a cursory version of my understanding - from geeking out with cut gurus over beer on a few different continents. Here is a graphic, below, showing a rudimentary timeline of reflectors.

Re the history graphic you posted John, for the record, I used the Firescope in lectures

at the GAA diamond diploma course from 1986 onwards, and at some stage in the late 1980''s I introduced a bright orange or a bright green

fluoro card board ring that sat beneath the pink reflector to show students that different cut qualities drew light from different areas. Technically this means I can do whatever I want with multi coloured scopes since I have plenty of student witnesses without breaching al''s and AGS''s patent rights. (but I prefer there to be as many people doing things to improve diamond cutting).

I also made portable versions of the Firescopetm with map readers around the same time and used them secretively in my diamond buying. I have a Indian vendor who still uses one of my Swiss map readers to this day as they got used to it for selecting small stones - here is a picture of one that I keep in my top desk drawer for no particular reason. They do not work well on +2ct stones bTW. So technically the Ideal-scope has been around longer than H&A''s viewers if your date is correct

Interesting Garry. I particularly chuckled over this line...

Some brands of H&A''s have become very popular in America; most are genuinely better performers, and the cute patterns are a marketers dream come true ...

Ain''t that the truth.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/6/2008 4:25:35 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/6/2008 2:53:34 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/6/2008 2:45:47 PM
Author: Serg

re:As I understand it, the H&A viewer was patented by Yamashita in Japan in 1990 and a similar device was patented in Japan and the US in 1994-1995 by H. Kobayashi. I have scans somewhere, but forget which patent they are for. I do have some of those early B&W pavilion views that show ''hearts'' as it were. Interesting that HRD has also chosen black & white for their standardized viewer.

Sorry Marty. I can''t help myself.

John,
Has anybody H&A patent in Belgium?

Serg: It is probably a waste of time and money to try to do it, as it is prior art both in Japan and the US, therefore it would be a useless patent, even if granted, which I doubt.

Marty,
I do not need H&A patent.
It was answer on your question (HRD)

Sorry Serg.. I misunderstood..

You might be able to give a very good H&A assesment (based on what appears to be the tighter Japanese standard) with DiamondCalc using Helium data.
I certainly wouldn''t loosen the "pattern standard" like some want, but showing the performance benefits or losses may be very interesting.