True Hearts?????? is this stone a true heart?

[arjunajane]

Date: 7/20/2008 12:52:10 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 7/20/2008 6:35:32 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 7/20/2008 3:26:35 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 7/20/2008 2:01:52 AM
Author: risingsun
When I was looking for my diamond, I was strongly considering a Hearts On Fire. I consulted with a respected appraiser and was given enough information to justify making this choice. The drawback was the price. I also consulted, at length, with Sir John and his colleagues at WF about an ACA. I also checked back with the same appraiser. I became convinced that the ACA was a outstanding stone--comparable to HOF-- that had the H&A pattern and ideal optical symmetry. I am aware the all H&A stones are not created the same. As a consumer, I need to base my decisions on some accessible, consistent parameters. If H&A is not longer a relevant term, then I want to know why I was told that it mattered and I paid a premium for my stone. If I discover that I have been misinformed, my trust in this process is gone. Rhino''s diamonds are not all true H&A''s and I''m sure they are beautiful, but I don''t want to hear that they are superior to ACA''s without evidence to back up that assertion. It''s difficult enough to be a customer making the leap to buy on the internet, IMO. I don''t want to be ''played with'' because the vendors are having a ''my diamond is better than your diamond'' contest. Before you start changing the rules, think of the people that have trusted you and bought your best diamonds. Be prepared for some very tough questions. I do possess the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and I am prepared to use it

Marian, I agree with you that it''s sad/disappointing that anyone could believe that the point of this thread boils down to a contest about ''my diamond is better than yours''. For my part, I can assure you that''s not my approach to this thread, nor is it that of Whiteflash.

This thread isn''t about (and shouldn''t be construed to be about) whose diamonds are better because here''s the bald reality: Every one of us offers some stones that are considered true H&As (according to the metrics outlined in the Pricescope tutorial and widely accepted by acclaimed/noted leaders in the industry), and every one of us also offers some stones that aren''t considered true H&A.

The notions that the H&A tutorial on Pricescope does a disservice to consumers or is materially responsible for diminishing demand or desirability of top-performing stones that aren''t true H&A is hogwash. H&A diamonds existed in the marketplace long before Pricescope published the H&A tutorial, and any consumer can be easily introduced to the notion of ''perfect hearts and arrows'' at whichever local jeweler carries Hearts on Fire.

Instead of blaming customer perceptions on high standard and deeming the standards unreasonable, we should be educating them on all the exciting options available to them and letting them decide which are important to them....just as you did.

Allison, and with 110% due respect I say this - perhaps we should allow Jonathan to return from vacation, catch up on this thread, and clarify his posts before extrapolating any further on what he may or may not have meant earlier?
He is a big boy and certainly doesn''t need me to defend, but I simply don''t like seeing someone''s posts referenced when they have announced they will not be around to conribute..
just mho, peace.

Arjuna, I mean no disrespect either, so it''s important to note that my comments weren''t an attempt to suggest what Jonathan may or may not have meant.

There are several contributors to this thread suggesting that the H&A tutorial is doing a disservice to consumers by diminishing desirability for any stone that doesn''t fit the parameters outlined in the tutorial. That''s the root of the issue for me, and my comments are offered in counterpoint to those many posts, not directed at Jonathan individually.

Gotcha

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/21/2008 3:10:55 AM
Author: strmrdr
Brian,
Whats the reason for the limit being at 80%?
From a performance perspective it makes no sense.
AGS0 goes to 85% and maybe beyond and GIA EX go out to 87.4%
Over 80% is the best lgf% for several combinations is a provable fact.

I see where you''re coming from, but the metrics aren''t set with performance *only* in mind. They are set with achieving both performance and a proper hearts pattern.

Since AGS and GIA don''t grade hearts, their performance tolerances only take into account what''s required for light performance.

If all you want is performance, then the range of acceptable combinations is wider. If you want performance *and* a true hearts pattern, the combinations possible to achieve that become narrower.

Date: 7/21/2008 3:10:55 AM
Author: strmrdr

This chart is scary because it discourages cutters from cutting some of the combinations to the best potential by limiting lgf% to 80%.

I don''t believe that to be true; it assumes that cutters would only *want* to cut H&A stones. Cutters will cut whatever will give them the most yield, and that never entails just H&A stones. Heck, it doesn''t even include cutting a preponderance of top-make stones!

Let''s remember than less than a few percent of diamonds cut even fall into these top makes to begin with, so the notion that a cutter isn''t going to cut outside of these tight parameters for fear of losing H&A designation isn''t a likelihood.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 7/20/2008 3:26:35 AM
Author: Allison D.


Marian, I agree with you that it's sad/disappointing that anyone could believe that the point of this thread boils down to a contest about 'my diamond is better than yours'. For my part, I can assure you that's not my approach to this thread, nor is it that of Whiteflash.

This thread isn't about (and shouldn't be construed to be about) whose diamonds are better because here's the bald reality: Every one of us offers some stones that are considered true H&As (according to the metrics outlined in the Pricescope tutorial and widely accepted by acclaimed/noted leaders in the industry), and every one of us also offers some stones that aren't considered true H&A.

The notions that the H&A tutorial on Pricescope does a disservice to consumers or is materially responsible for diminishing demand or desirability of top-performing stones that aren't true H&A is hogwash. H&A diamonds existed in the marketplace long before Pricescope published the H&A tutorial, and any consumer can be easily introduced to the notion of 'perfect hearts and arrows' at whichever local jeweler carries Hearts on Fire.

Instead of blaming customer perceptions on high standard and deeming the standards unreasonable, we should be educating them on all the exciting options available to them and letting them decide which are important to them....just as you did.

Thanks for your response, Alj. I am also pleased that Brian participated in this discussion. A good deal of time has spent--by vendor/educators--explaining the nuances of the elements to look for in a top performing diamond. Not all of these v/e are in agreement about these parameters. By now, some of us have a pretty good idea who is going to support which point of view. We are discussing top performing diamonds and top diamond cutters in this thread. It is disingenuous to act as if we are talking about anything else. This is the undercurrent I am getting from several of our posters. If I am wrong in this feeling, I would be delighted.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/21/2008 11:51:13 AM
Author: risingsun

Date: 7/20/2008 3:26:35 AM

Author: Allison D.




Marian, I agree with you that it''s sad/disappointing that anyone could believe that the point of this thread boils down to a contest about ''my diamond is better than yours''. For my part, I can assure you that''s not my approach to this thread, nor is it that of Whiteflash.


This thread isn''t about (and shouldn''t be construed to be about) whose diamonds are better because here''s the bald reality: Every one of us offers some stones that are considered true H&As (according to the metrics outlined in the Pricescope tutorial and widely accepted by acclaimed/noted leaders in the industry), and every one of us also offers some stones that aren''t considered true H&A.


The notions that the H&A tutorial on Pricescope does a disservice to consumers or is materially responsible for diminishing demand or desirability of top-performing stones that aren''t true H&A is hogwash. H&A diamonds existed in the marketplace long before Pricescope published the H&A tutorial, and any consumer can be easily introduced to the notion of ''perfect hearts and arrows'' at whichever local jeweler carries Hearts on Fire.


Instead of blaming customer perceptions on high standard and deeming the standards unreasonable, we should be educating them on all the exciting options available to them and letting them decide which are important to them....just as you did.

Thanks for your response, Alj. I am also pleased that Brian participated in this discussion. A good deal of time has spent--by vendor/educators--explaining the nuances of the elements to look for in a top performing diamond. Not all of these v/e are in agreement about these parameters. By now, some of us have a pretty good idea who is going to support which point of view. We are discussing top performing diamonds and top diamond cutters in this thread. It is disingenuous to act as if we are talking about anything else. This is the undercurrent I am getting from several of our posters. If I am wrong in this feeling, I would be delighted.

Unfortunately that seems to be the understanding, but what we are really talking about in response to the first post, is patterns. The patterns have little to do with performance as far as total light return is involved, in fact it is quite possible to have excellent H&A patterns in a stone that is only a medium performer.

Storm is absolutely right that the cut off for H&A ignores some fantastic performing stones. He is however, in my opinion, wrong to keep saying that the "V"s represent H&A as they have been traditionally known and are still known.

I believe that eventually we will have solid research to confirm that the patterns do add value to the appearance of the diamonds, and that there will be more than one pattern that does so. I think when the long awaited research by AGS on scintillation and dispersion is finally ready that will be one of the issues addressed.

In the mean time, I think it important to recognize that H&A pattern is a pattern, not a performance. I believe it can be a plus to a top performing stone, but that the pattern itself does NOT determine performance. In that Storm and I are in complete agreement. However, the pattern DOES determine whether it can be called an H&A and that is not going to change to include either "Lawn Darts" or "V"s.

Wink

 

[Regular Guy]

A couple of notes:

1) I appreciate the value proposition of what contributions "hearts & arrows" can contribute to a well crafted diamond, that Storm has held to, and that others may have lost some sight of. I still miss the glossary, and John's impassioned discussion of this, although I can believe this discussion is sufficiently in both the H&A tutorial, and dozens of other places regardless.

2) I wonder, although it is not the main point of how H&A adds value, if any expert would care to comment on the extent, if any, of there being a nexus...a relationship...between two points of controversy.

a) the inclusion of inclusions in discussing H&A...i.e., whether it is reasonable to consider...because it impacts on performance...the existence of inclusions, when evaluating H&A

b) the extent to which inclusions (like clouds) can bear on a diamond's light performance, altogether.

I anticipate my friends will ask me to speak English...but hopefully you will work with me.

Related discussion (or denial/disagreement, etc.) below...

P.S. To my friend, Marian...rumor that a killer rabbit had me as hostage and at bay to provoke my earlier recollections (which is sort of all they were) are either wholly exaggerated, or completely true...depending on whether you think the rabbit has me even now!

Date: 7/18/2008 3:23:32 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 7/18/2008 8:24:18 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Since Wink hinted at it, I feel that I have to add my two cents about the new H&A-standards, established by HRD. As such, HRD is the first lab to publicize their criteria for H&A. At this point in time, I am still in discussion with their research-group, in order to give my feedback, but also to fully understand the system. After I have gone through this exercise, I will probably write an article about their new H&A-system, and of their new cut-grade, which they presented earlier this week. Bear with me there.

In order to already give you a teaser, I think that HRD has done a great job at studying existing H&A-viewers, filters in the viewer, and problems of positioning the stone. As such, they have developed a camera-setup, which seems easy to use, and which gives an objective view of the hearts- and the arrows-pattern. Outstanding job.

Then, they have developed a system with 10 minimum criteria for the hearts-pattern and 8 for the arrows-pattern, observed in their set-up. Not all of these criteria can be used, if the stone is photographed in another setup, but some do.

As far as I can judge, comparing guidelines with this (slightly distorted) picture, this hearts-pattern would probably not obtain the H&A-grade by HRD.

But, putting this in perspective, so would many stones produced by us, simply because in the HRD-system, a pattern distorted by an inclusion does not get the grade. And we need to put the value of the H&A-pattern into perspective. H&A by itself means little to nothing, as HRD has calculated that one can obtain a solid H&A-pattern in the following proportion-ranges:

Pavilion angle from 39.9° to 41.7°
Crown-angler from 29.9° to 41.4°
Table-size from 52% to 59%
To clarify, this depends upon the combination of proportions, of course, but you can see the wide range of possibilities.

More on the HRD-system later.

Live long,

This is interesting to hear Paul. In my professional opinion and having been photographing these types of diamonds now for 8 years it is good to see a lab take optical symmetry into consideration. This is a big plus. If however they are disqualifying a Hearts pattern because of a clarity characteristic they are missing the whole point of optical symmetry in the first place. Why? Because clarity has nothing to do with cut quality and Optical Symmetry is a reflection of cut quality not clarity. Also if they are disqualifying lower girdle facet lengths 78% plus they are again not seeing the forest for the trees.

At least they're thinking about it.

Regards,

 

[strmrdr]

Hi RG

I will give you my opinion:

1: optical symmetry adds value to an RB several ways all which have nothing to do with arbitrary heart ratings that are never seen other than under a scope with the diamonds upside down.

1a. contrast patterns of the arrows
1a1:but there is a point where its too much of a good thing and it interferes with performance in some conditions. (obstruction issues)

1b. increased light return across a wide variety of lighting.
1b1: total light return may not be improved but the control of that return is better.

1c. as a component of workmanship

2: I''m not sure how to answer this but I hope the above does? if not clarify please.

a) inclusions are only an issue when they are eye visible or effect performance any other consideration is either personal preference or marketing.

b) leaving frozen spit out of consideration:
b1)carbon on the pavilion has the greatest effect on performance on an otherwise clean stone.

b2)Next up would be very large feathers or crystals that run across the stone parallel to the table on an otherwise clean stone. They would be eye visible usually.

b3) Then would be clouds. The problem with clouds is that they can impact performance and not be eye visible or even not visible under anything but darkfield lighting at 10X or higher. I haven''t seen it myself but I have heard of clouds that were not visible at 10x darkfield that effected performance.
There are specific things an expert will look for to rule out such stones.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/20/2008 4:30:02 PM
Author: agc

John, great historical review! I really appreciate the time you take to answer our questions and enlighten us. I also love the way you can calm a heated discussion down with your response. Keep up the great work.

Thanks agc. I'm flattered by your sentiments and enjoy participating here. Our group does get passionate at times because we sincerely care about the subject matter. It's one of the ingredients that makes this place addictive.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/22/2008 9:55:35 AM
Author: Regular Guy
A couple of notes:

1) I appreciate the value proposition of what contributions ''hearts &arrows'' can contribute to a well crafted diamond, that Storm has held to, and that others may have lost some sight of. I still miss the glossary, and John''s impassioned discussion of this, although I can believe this discussion is sufficiently in both the H&A tutorial, and dozens of other places regardless.

2) I wonder, although it is not the main point of how H&A adds value, if any expert would care to comment on the extent, if any, of there being a nexus...a relationship...between two points of controversy.

a) the inclusion of inclusions in discussing H&A...i.e., whether it is reasonable to consider...because it impacts on performance...the existence of inclusions, when evaluating H&A

I don''t believe so. The HRD''s evaluation, like some of the original Japanese, is actually rewarding the appearance of H&A seen in the reflector. It''s not performance-related. Again, it''s about geometry and whether those shapes look like little hearts or not.

b) the extent to which inclusions (like clouds) can bear on a diamond''s light performance, altogether.

It has nothing to do with H&A (Original, Japan, HRD, IDCC or otherwise), and I suspect by adding a clarity-performance discussion into our already-convoluted H&A pattern topic (versus H&A-performance) we would be muddying the waters with another tangent.

I think that if someone wants to begin a separate thread about optical symmetry and performance it might be better for future searches than continuing to bring performance discussion into this one.

I anticipate my friends will ask me to speak English...but hopefully you will work with me.

Not at all. In fact you have been confusingly unconfusing for some time to me. Or maybe I''ve come to possess the Ira Rosetta Stone(?)
Woo hoo!

 

[strmrdr]

Hey Sir John and anyone else who wants to answer, here is a challenge for you.
Since you want to separate h&a images from any performance consideration.
Without using any words related to contrast, brilliance, scintillation or light return answer this questions:
Why should a consumer spend more money on a h&a diamond than one without it?

 

[rcrosier]

Date: 7/22/2008 6:00:21 PM
Author: strmrdr
Hey Sir John and anyone else who wants to answer, here is a challenge for you.
Since you want to separate h&a images from any performance consideration.
Without using any words related to contrast, brilliance, scintillation or light return answer this questions:
Why should a consumer spend more money on a h&a diamond than one without it?

A consumer''s answer to your question:

For the same reason a consumer wants a VVS1 instead of a VVS2, a D instead of an E, or a 1.50ct instead of a 1.49ct (given equally proportional spreads). I know that some people may actually be able to tell the difference between the two colors, but other than that comparison it comes down to purely what a consumer wants. I wanted an H&A stone because I wanted one. It''s like the AppleJacks commercial: Q:"Why do you like AppleJacks?" A:"We just do..."

For me it was about getting the best cut possible. I just found that the ACA H&A diamonds at WF shined slightly better than the "expert selection" when I did a blind comparison w/ Brian Gavin in his office. So I paid the premium... I can''t tell the difference between an F and a D mounted, or between a VS1 and a VVS2, but I could see the ACA H&A advantage... I know this probably isn''t the answer you wanted, but it is an honest answer from a consumer.

 

[risingsun]

Hi Ira

If the rabbit has you, I will refrain from using the holy hand grenade. I suggest we join forces and look for the grail ourselves

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/22/2008 7:02:38 PM
Author: rcrosier

Date: 7/22/2008 6:00:21 PM

Author: strmrdr

Hey Sir John and anyone else who wants to answer, here is a challenge for you.

Since you want to separate h&a images from any performance consideration.

Without using any words related to contrast, brilliance, scintillation or light return answer this questions:

Why should a consumer spend more money on a h&a diamond than one without it?

A consumer''s answer to your question:


For the same reason a consumer wants a VVS1 instead of a VVS2, a D instead of an E, or a 1.50ct instead of a 1.49ct (given equally proportional spreads). I know that some people may actually be able to tell the difference between the two colors, but other than that comparison it comes down to purely what a consumer wants. I wanted an H&A stone because I wanted one. It''s like the AppleJacks commercial: Q:''Why do you like AppleJacks?'' A:''We just do...''


For me it was about getting the best cut possible. I just found that the ACA H&A diamonds at WF shined slightly better than the ''expert selection'' when I did a blind comparison w/ Brian Gavin in his office. So I paid the premium... I can''t tell the difference between an F and a D mounted, or between a VS1 and a VVS2, but I could see the ACA H&A advantage... I know this probably isn''t the answer you wanted, but it is an honest answer from a consumer.

first Congrats on the diamond :}

That''s one valid answer but what if you had been shown a h&a diamond with less performance than the non-h&a?
What convinced you that h&a was better? Performance.
Lets say a friend wants to buy a diamond how would you convince them to buy a h&a without mentioning anything related to performance?
That is my question.

 

[jasontb]

Date: 7/22/2008 7:02:38 PM
Author: rcrosier

Date: 7/22/2008 6:00:21 PM

Author: strmrdr

Hey Sir John and anyone else who wants to answer, here is a challenge for you.

Since you want to separate h&a images from any performance consideration.

Without using any words related to contrast, brilliance, scintillation or light return answer this questions:

Why should a consumer spend more money on a h&a diamond than one without it?

A consumer''s answer to your question:


For the same reason a consumer wants a VVS1 instead of a VVS2, a D instead of an E, or a 1.50ct instead of a 1.49ct (given equally proportional spreads). I know that some people may actually be able to tell the difference between the two colors, but other than that comparison it comes down to purely what a consumer wants. I wanted an H&A stone because I wanted one. It''s like the AppleJacks commercial: Q:''Why do you like AppleJacks?'' A:''We just do...''


For me it was about getting the best cut possible. I just found that the ACA H&A diamonds at WF shined slightly better than the ''expert selection'' when I did a blind comparison w/ Brian Gavin in his office. So I paid the premium... I can''t tell the difference between an F and a D mounted, or between a VS1 and a VVS2, but I could see the ACA H&A advantage... I know this probably isn''t the answer you wanted, but it is an honest answer from a consumer.

That is not an apples to apples comparison. D is *whiter* then D. 1.50 is *bigger* than 1.49. The only statement that can be made with hearts is: A H&A stone with perfectly formed hearts *looks more like hearts* than one with clefts.

You want a H&A because you want the best cut possible? That is the crux of the argument going on here. People think that H&A is the best cut possible. And that a H&A with perfect hearts is a better cut than one that ''fails'' because it has clefts. That is simply not true. It''s not a better cut. It''s just a cut that looks more like hearts.

Let''s be honest here. H&A was developed as a standard for great cut. People buy H&A because they think they are getting the best cut possible. They do not but them because they want to see perfect unclefted hearts in the bottom of their stones when viewed in a special reflective device. They buy them because they want the best.

True...the clefts do not make for true ''hearts''. But they can make for amazing stones. But lets not mislead people to think that the lack of a heart is indicative of ANYTHING but the lack of a arbitrary pattern.

In summary, the only value in the term H&A is in the perceived performance and cut quality. Nobody values the hearts.

Also, I do not think it is fair that Jon''s diamonds with clefted hearts are being equated (perhaps only implicitly) to ES stones at WhiteFlash.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did buy a H&A stone from Jon with slight clefts. Though I think it would ''pass'' the H&A test because the clefts appear to be less than 8%

 

[BrianTheCutter]

Date: 7/22/2008 6:00:21 PM
Author: strmrdr
Hey Sir John and anyone else who wants to answer, here is a challenge for you.
Since you want to separate h&a images from any performance consideration.
Without using any words related to contrast, brilliance, scintillation or light return answer this questions:
Why should a consumer spend more money on a h&a diamond than one without it?

Knowing that they have a better manufactured stone cut to perfection with great optical symmetry and
for many..a better performing stone, based on their vision as so elequently put by "rcrosier" above!

I have witnessed tens of thousands like him pass before me the last 10 years, doing the same thing.

That''s testament to the stones, not HRD not Brianthecutter not Diacalc !

The bottom line is, consumers speak for themselves after comparing and evaluating, they make the decisions !

Part of building a brand was, is and will always be about consistency, perfection, true hearts and arrows with a set of standards,
subscribed to by peers, labs and consumers world wide, since the late 80''s to present.

Consumers can rely on that, day in and day out, it works for most.

Thats why!

Its funny strm,you as a consumers advocate, some 16 500 posts back insisted on Wf showing images of our H&A''s, I resisted it for a long time.
I said, that was the "A Cut Above gaurentee," maybe I should have continued to resist

 

[BrianTheCutter]

style="WIDTH: 99%; HEIGHT: 795px">Date: 7/22/2008 8:12:37 PM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/22/2008 7:02:38 PM
Author: rcrosier

Date: 7/22/2008 6:00:21 PM

Author: strmrdr

Hey Sir John and anyone else who wants to answer, here is a challenge for you.

Since you want to separate h&a images from any performance consideration.

Without using any words related to contrast, brilliance, scintillation or light return answer this questions:

Why should a consumer spend more money on a h&a diamond than one without it?

A consumer''s answer to your question:


For the same reason a consumer wants a VVS1 instead of a VVS2, a D instead of an E, or a 1.50ct instead of a 1.49ct (given equally proportional spreads). I know that some people may actually be able to tell the difference between the two colors, but other than that comparison it comes down to purely what a consumer wants. I wanted an H&A stone because I wanted one. It''s like the AppleJacks commercial: Q:''Why do you like AppleJacks?'' A:''We just do...''


For me it was about getting the best cut possible. I just found that the ACA H&A diamonds at WF shined slightly better than the ''expert selection'' when I did a blind comparison w/ Brian Gavin in his office. So I paid the premium... I can''t tell the difference between an F and a D mounted, or between a VS1 and a VVS2, but I could see the ACA H&A advantage... I know this probably isn''t the answer you wanted, but it is an honest answer from a consumer.

That is not an apples to apples comparison. D is *whiter* then D. 1.50 is *bigger* than 1.49. The only statement that can be made with hearts is: A H&A stone with perfectly formed hearts *looks more like hearts* than one with clefts.

You want a H&A because you want the best cut possible? That is the crux of the argument going on here. People think that H&A is the best cut possible. And that a H&A with perfect hearts is a better cut than one that ''fails'' because it has clefts. That is simply not true. It''s not a better cut. It''s just a cut that looks more like hearts.

Let''s be honest here. H&A was developed as a standard for great cut. People buy H&A because they think they are getting the best cut possible. They do not but them because they want to see perfect unclefted hearts in the bottom of their stones when viewed in a special reflective device. They buy them because they want the best.

True...the clefts do not make for true ''hearts''. But they can make for amazing stones. But lets not mislead people to think that the lack of a heart is indicative of ANYTHING but the lack of a arbitrary pattern.

In summary, the only value in the term H&A is in the perceived performance and cut quality. Nobody values the hearts.

Also, I do not think it is fair that Jon''s diamonds with clefted hearts are being equated (perhaps only implicitly) to ES stones at WhiteFlash.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did buy a H&A stone from Jon with slight clefts. Though I think it would ''pass'' the H&A test because the clefts appear to be less than 8%

"Though I think it would ''pass'' the H&A test because the clefts appear to be less than 8%"

Thats great, but you used the standard to make that judgement and I am sure you have a beautifull perfoming stone that you and your partner enjoy.

 

[jasontb]

Date: 7/20/2008 10:00:13 PM
Author: BrianTheCutter
For consumers out there… Those who have bought great performing stones that do not have this patterning it’s fine. You have great stones, regardless of whether they are true Hearts and Arrows. Enjoy them.


For those of you who bought great performing stones with True Hearts and Arrows you got what you paid for. Enjoy it.

But what did they pay for? An arbitrary shape in their diamond? A geometric coincidence? Or was it the perceived performance that comes with a H&A?

Did you charge them more for a H&A because you believe the heart is the most perfect shape in the world and therefore any product which contains the pattern of a heart should be sold at a premium? Or was it because you spent so much time and care creating a diamond with such tight tolerances and premium performance.

I think that, regardless of how the industry or some of the more advanced members of this board understand it, to almost all consumers (even some people who post here frequently), the term ''H&A'' is an indication of superior craftsmanship and performance. And the bigger problem, imho, is that they view the term as an indication of superior craftsman and performance relative to a stone that ''fails'' to meet the criteria. Which is not necessarily true.

No disrespect intended by my tongue in cheek phrasing.

 

[agc]

I agree that alot of consumers equate H&A with the best in craftsmanship AND performance. They are paying a premium not to simply see a pattern but because they expect that this pattern will equate to the best craftsmanship and performance and they expect it to surpass diamonds that do not have true H&A''s. One quick question. What in the cut of the diamond gives true symmetric hearts but the V''s are variable?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/22/2008 8:26:56 PM
Author: BrianTheCutter

Its funny strm,you as a consumers advocate, some 16 500 posts back insisted on Wf showing images of our H&A''s, I resisted it for a long time.

Thanks for showing them :}
I know I said that to sir John several times but thinking about I don''t know if I have said that directly to you.
I would still be bugging you about it if you hadn''t :}
I do admire your passion for your product and think they are great diamonds.
That we sometimes rather hotly disagree on issues now and then does not change that.
The quality of your heart and hearts isn''t in question here.
There is a lot more to an ACA than pretty hearts and part of that is your passion!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/20/2008 12:07:16 PM
Author: agc
My two cents on the issue. Marketing forces (not on this forum) have sold the general public the line that H&A are the ultimate, best cut, best performing diamonds and anything less is second best. When the average consumer comes to this forum and reads a tutorial on H&A and sees that the the hearts with clefts ''FAILS'' many automatically assume that means less precision, less perfect and less beauty since it ''FAILED''. Most do not realize this is strictly a patterning issue and not a direct measure of performance. They do not understand that diamonds with longer lgf will have clefts and could actually be cut tighter and perform better than a true, traditional H&A and therefore are not ''FAILURES'' of quality or performance. It all comes down to perception of the word ''FAIL''. IMHO.

AGC here is another part of the tutorial on this site that was not written by Brian Gavin.
http://diamonds.pricescope.com/hna.asp

I think this aids in balance about claims made by H&A''s.
Also a stone that I used as an example in this article about failings of the GIA cut grading system are examples where H&A''s is about patterning and nothing more.
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/37/5/GIA-Excellent-Cut-Grade-Case-Study.aspx
this stone showed nice H&A''s

 

[Serg]

Hi, Wink

re:Storm is absolutely right that the cut off for H&A ignores some fantastic performing stones.

could you help find such stone for our our MSS?

we need

"5.8mm (5.75-5.85) rounds
G to F
VS2 / SI1
Non Fluoro
Average Girdle thickness: Medium 3% at mains
MSS Cutting Rules
"

Also we are looking now Radiant, Cushion, Pear and any other fancy cut with:
1)fantastic performance
2) G to F ,VS2 / SI1 ,Non Fluoro
3) mass=0.71ct(100-spread)/100

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Did you know that Garry loves to eat what we call ''stoofvlees'' when he is in Antwerp? In translation, I think that stew would be the best translation.

When we, Belgians, talk of preparing stew, we all remember that our mothers would add a slice of bread (preferably dark bread), covered with pear-syrup and mustard to the stew. And of course prunes. For us, that makes the stew really good.

However, most important are of course the other ingredients, which we, Belgians, do not consider, because we think it logical to use fine meat of various animals.

Now, I know little about stew in a technical sense, but there is a great analogy here with diamonds.

Live long,

 

[Serg]

Date: 7/22/2008 8:12:37 PM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/22/2008 7:02:38 PM
Author: rcrosier

Date: 7/22/2008 6:00:21 PM

Author: strmrdr

Hey Sir John and anyone else who wants to answer, here is a challenge for you.

Since you want to separate h&a images from any performance consideration.

Without using any words related to contrast, brilliance, scintillation or light return answer this questions:

Why should a consumer spend more money on a h&a diamond than one without it?

A consumer''s answer to your question:


For the same reason a consumer wants a VVS1 instead of a VVS2, a D instead of an E, or a 1.50ct instead of a 1.49ct (given equally proportional spreads). I know that some people may actually be able to tell the difference between the two colors, but other than that comparison it comes down to purely what a consumer wants. I wanted an H&A stone because I wanted one. It''s like the AppleJacks commercial: Q:''Why do you like AppleJacks?'' A:''We just do...''


For me it was about getting the best cut possible. I just found that the ACA H&A diamonds at WF shined slightly better than the ''expert selection'' when I did a blind comparison w/ Brian Gavin in his office. So I paid the premium... I can''t tell the difference between an F and a D mounted, or between a VS1 and a VVS2, but I could see the ACA H&A advantage... I know this probably isn''t the answer you wanted, but it is an honest answer from a consumer.

That is not an apples to apples comparison. D is *whiter* then D. 1.50 is *bigger* than 1.49. The only statement that can be made with hearts is: A H&A stone with perfectly formed hearts *looks more like hearts* than one with clefts.

You want a H&A because you want the best cut possible? That is the crux of the argument going on here. People think that H&A is the best cut possible. And that a H&A with perfect hearts is a better cut than one that ''fails'' because it has clefts. That is simply not true. It''s not a better cut. It''s just a cut that looks more like hearts.

Let''s be honest here. H&A was developed as a standard for great cut. People buy H&A because they think they are getting the best cut possible. They do not but them because they want to see perfect unclefted hearts in the bottom of their stones when viewed in a special reflective device. They buy them because they want the best.

True...the clefts do not make for true ''hearts''. But they can make for amazing stones. But lets not mislead people to think that the lack of a heart is indicative of ANYTHING but the lack of a arbitrary pattern.

In summary, the only value in the term H&A is in the perceived performance and cut quality. Nobody values the hearts.

Also, I do not think it is fair that Jon''s diamonds with clefted hearts are being equated (perhaps only implicitly) to ES stones at WhiteFlash.

In the interest of full disclosure, I did buy a H&A stone from Jon with slight clefts. Though I think it would ''pass'' the H&A test because the clefts appear to be less than 8%

H&A is not only ''magic'' pattern. It is indication high level symmetry . there are two positive extremumes possible For big round diamonds
1) Perfect symmetry
2) very low symmetry( of course diamonds with low symmetry could be very bad too)

medium symmetry is very bad solution

I know two Advantages of perfect symmetry for big round diamonds:
1) high level symmetry decrease average ray pass in diamond( diamond from crown looks more white)
2) Uniform distribution of ETAS flashes=minimization of maximum size blind zones in ETAS space( Probability what diamond can not catch light is less)
medium symmetry
1)increase number virtual facets,( Etas flashes)
2) Destroy Uniform distribution
Because new virtual facets are to small( for medium symmetry) , Blind zone become bigger ( due bad distribution )

low symmetry create bigger new virtual facets( of course average size is less than for high symmetry) what decrease size of blind zones( better "Life")

Some Low symmetry diamonds could have better performance than H&A,
Medium Symmetry diamonds have worse performance than H&A
Most low symmetry diamonds have worse performance than medium symmetry diamonds
only real connoisseur has ability recognize low symmetry diamond what is better than H&A.
In real life consumer has not ability compare diamonds in same light environment ( Usually you can not see H&A and low symmetry rounds in one shop. sellers could have only one Ugly diamond for negative demonstration. )

standard Consumer can not recognize nice diamond with low symmetry, cutter can not repeat such diamond( H&A is perfect guideline for cutters), labs can not grade

It is reason why H&A is more and more popular. H&A is not just pattern, it is real BRAND. But big enough diamond with low symmetry could be better than H&A with same mass( for connoisseur. How many connoisseurs has diamond industry?

)
H&A is economically reasonable mainstream now . Consumer education is too costly.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/22/2008 7:02:38 PM
Author: rcrosier

A consumer''s answer to your question:

For the same reason a consumer wants a VVS1 instead of a VVS2, a D instead of an E, or a 1.50ct instead of a 1.49ct (given equally proportional spreads). I know that some people may actually be able to tell the difference between the two colors, but other than that comparison it comes down to purely what a consumer wants. I wanted an H&A stone because I wanted one. It''s like the AppleJacks commercial: Q:''Why do you like AppleJacks?'' A:''We just do...''

A hearty AMEN to Rob! Rob wins the prize!

Rob, you should proceed to Go and collect the $200!

This is precisely the right answer! Because the customer, for whatever his reasoning, places importance and value on that element.

Some people appreciate the precision and craftsmanship that goes into making perfect hearts. That is not to say that other non- H&A stones aren''t cut just as precisely or don''t also require high craftsmanship....they do. But if a consumer appreciates mentally knowing that the H&A pattern demonstrates a type of optical symmetry that he likes, then it''s reasonable for him to want one.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/22/2008 7:27:05 PM
Author: strmrdr

That''s one valid answer but what if you had been shown a h&a diamond with less performance than the non-h&a?
What convinced you that h&a was better? Performance.
Lets say a friend wants to buy a diamond how would you convince them to buy a h&a without mentioning anything related to performance?
That is my question.

You keep mentioning "what about an H&A diamond vs. a non-H&A with superior performance?"

For me, the answer would be this: is the difference in performance visibly discernable? If it is, then of course I''d prefer the visually superior performing non-H&A stone, because *my* personal preference is performance.

If the ''less performance'' isn''t visually discernable, then for me, both stones would be equal performers in a practical sense. At that point, whether or not I''d want the true H&A stone would likely come down to cost. If the cost difference wasn''t prohibitive, I''d select the true H&A stone because I appreciate the pattern and because I know it denotes optical symmetry. That''s not to say that other stones without the pattern don''t have optical symmetry, too.....it''s just to say that''s MY preferred flavor of optical symmetry.

I would always select the stone that appeared to perform better to my eyes, regardless of the label (H&A, IF, etc. etc.)

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/22/2008 8:12:37 PM
Author: jasontb

That is not an apples to apples comparison. D is *whiter* then D. 1.50 is *bigger* than 1.49. The only statement that can be made with hearts is: A H&A stone with perfectly formed hearts *looks more like hearts* than one with clefts.

I disagree; I believe it is an apples to apples comparison. In fact, the ONLY 'factual' example you gave above is the 1.49 vs. 1.50. A "D" stone is not *absolutely* whiter than another color grade; remember, color grading is subjective. It's an educated OPINION, not a fact.

In all instances, the difference may measurable/technically exist, but likely doesn't visually exist. In fact, that was the argument by several on your end of the debate earlier in thread....that H&A shouldn't matter because you can't see it when the diamond is worn.

I contend that you can't see the difference between the 1.49 and 1.50 diamond when worn. You can't see the difference between the D and the E when worn (which is what I presume you really meant above). You can't see the difference between IF and VVS1 when worn. You can't see the difference in a top-performing stone with perfect hearts and a top-performing stone without perfect hearts when worn. In ALL instances, there is a measurable difference, but not a visible difference, and those measurable differences carry a premium.

In most cases, consumers are looking for top-performing stones. Once they have several, they go to other elements to help narrow their selections.

It happens that I personally don't care about clarity (beyond eyeclean) at all; there is no "mind-clean" or mental attraction for me in VVS stones. I sleep just fine at night knowing that there is a small inclusion in one of my stones that I can readily identify under 10x. One of my friends has a personal bugaboo about clarity and simply cannot sleep at night with a similar type of inclusions because 'it bugs her'. She can't see it without a loupe, but 'she knows it's there'.

My point is, we both have different criteria for what we value, and neither is right. It's simply personal preference. The same is true for H&A lovers; they appreciate that pattern and it means something to them, and that's reason enough for them to prefer it.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/22/2008 8:12:37 PM
Author: jasontb

You want a H&A because you want the best cut possible? That is the crux of the argument going on here. People think that H&A is the best cut possible. And that a H&A with perfect hearts is a better cut than one that ''fails'' because it has clefts. That is simply not true. It''s not a better cut. It''s just a cut that looks more like hearts.

Let''s be honest here. H&A was developed as a standard for great cut. People buy H&A because they think they are getting the best cut possible. They do not but them because they want to see perfect unclefted hearts in the bottom of their stones when viewed in a special reflective device. They buy them because they want the best.

True...the clefts do not make for true ''hearts''. But they can make for amazing stones. But lets not mislead people to think that the lack of a heart is indicative of ANYTHING but the lack of a arbitrary pattern.

In summary, the only value in the term H&A is in the perceived performance and cut quality. Nobody values the hearts.

I respectfully disagree. To some buyers, the value of H&A denotes precision and craftsmanship.

I''ll say it again: that''s not to say that some non- H&A stones don''t also display optical symmetry and craftsmanship. It just means that some people personally feel comfortable with that flavor of optical symmetry and craftsmanship; they have confidence in it.

I''m in agreement with Storm in that I see H&A as a subset of optical symmetry. There are several different flavors of optical symmetry; H&A is but one of them. I happen to like that one; others may prefer something else.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/22/2008 8:41:11 PM
Author: jasontb

But what did they pay for? An arbitrary shape in their diamond? A geometric coincidence? Or was it the perceived performance that comes with a H&A?

Did you charge them more for a H&A because you believe the heart is the most perfect shape in the world and therefore any product which contains the pattern of a heart should be sold at a premium? Or was it because you spent so much time and care creating a diamond with such tight tolerances and premium performance.

I think that, regardless of how the industry or some of the more advanced members of this board understand it, to almost all consumers (even some people who post here frequently), the term ''H&A'' is an indication of superior craftsmanship and performance. And the bigger problem, imho, is that they view the term as an indication of superior craftsman and performance relative to a stone that ''fails'' to meet the criteria. Which is not necessarily true.

No disrespect intended by my tongue in cheek phrasing.

So, to paraphrase, your problem with having a *standard* is that consumers may mistakenly think that anything falling outside the standard is somehow inferior?

If so, then you should begin by lobbying for dismissal of color and clarity standards first. Not only are they subjective (i.e. not remotely factual but only expert opinion), but consumers widely misunderstand them and are often preyed upon by some in the trade who exploit their lack of understanding about what the differences mean. Consumers routinely think that an F color is *better* than an H, which is not necessarily true. It carries a higher premium, yes (just like H&A), but that doesn''t mean it should be every individual''s preference (just like H&A).

I stood in a chain store jewelry store with two other Pricescopers last year and witnessed a salesman telling a young man trying to buy an engagement stone that if he bought anything less than a G color, the only thing his girlfriend would think when she looked at her ring would be "I''m disappointed because it looks so YELLOW." (The three of us had to walk out of the store to resist the urge to pick that poor young man up and physically remove him from the lion''s den!) Do you want to talk about how the existence of color labels were used to confuse this poor man? Should we drop color distinctions because some people may become confused by them?

You want to talk about erroneous customer perceptions and how they affect the marketplace? How about this one: one carat is bigger than .95 ct. Heck, consumers still believe carat weight means SIZE (i.e. diameter). How many countless times have charter Pricescopers had to explain to a newcomer that a well-cut .95 stone may actually be ''bigger'' than a lesser-cut 1 ct.? Too many to count.

My point? Customers come to the table with a whole host of misperceptions, and it''s up to responsible/reputable vendors to help educate them and debunk any misconceptions. Trying to point the finger at the existence of H&A standards as the chief culprit for consumer confusion is ridiculous. I have to believe that any vendor skilled enough to explain the differences in color, cut, and clarity and help a consumer overcome those misconceptions would be equally skilled enough to also help customers overcome any misconceptions that H&A, in and of itself, *always* denotes superior performance.

 

[purrfectpear]

What I find most interesting is that there are people who would pay more for an "official H&A" diamond rather than less for a totally equal "almost H&A" diamond due to clefts, and yet from the top you don''t even SEE the hearts

The arrows could be the same on both stones, and that IS the part that the consumer can see.

I guess it''s like people that buy the Tiffany name rather than a better diamond from Whiteflash for half the cost. Different perceptions of value and all that.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/23/2008 11:32:13 AM
Author: Allison D.

If so, then you should begin by lobbying for dismissal of color and clarity standards first. Not only are they subjective (i.e. not remotely factual but only expert opinion), but consumers widely misunderstand them and are often preyed upon by some in the trade who exploit their lack of understanding about what the differences mean. Consumers routinely think that an F color is *better* than an H, which is not necessarily true.

What an awesome idea why shouldn''t your company be first? After all they have you to explain it!
Maybe others will join in.
Sir John can educate the dealers and you can educate the consumers.
Come on just do it your company has a lot of pull and can educate people!
Just think what you can do in the fight against arbitrary standards.

storm looks back at the first page wow that advise sounds familiar.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/22/2008 6:00:21 PM
Author: strmrdr

Hey Sir John and anyone else who wants to answer, here is a challenge for you.
Since you want to separate h&a images from any performance consideration.

Come on Strm, you know I am as much a fan of the performance benefits as anyone. But I also respect the original Japanese cutters and patterns that started the H&A movement and (as we all remind people) are not necessarily related to performance.

The question that started this thread was not about performance.

Without using any words related to contrast, brilliance, scintillation or light return answer this questions:
Why should a consumer spend more money on a h&a diamond than one without it?

Read this post.