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

[HariSeldon]

Date: 7/23/2008 7:24:29 PM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/23/2008 6:47:34 PM

Author: Allison D.


Jason, believe it or not, there are some people who ARE in search of the purple stew because they''re in Belgium and they want authentic Belgian stew.

That is a VERY small percentage of the stew buying public.

Date: 7/23/2008 6:47:34 PM

Author: Allison D.


However, let''s run with your position that they do think it''s the best stew in the world. So, then, should you go tell Paul''s mother to stop making her stew with purple food coloring just because it confuses people who can''t grasp that there is more than one kind of great stew?

I absolutely would not. I like the purple stew too.

Date: 7/23/2008 6:47:34 PM

Author: Allison D.


Do you really think that if I go to Paul''s house with MY non-purple stew and ask them to taste both stews that people aren''t bright enough to grasp that both stews are equally good? Not only will some of them agree that my stew is just as good......GASP......some people may even prefer my non-purple stew.

ABSOLUTELY. Do you really, honestly believe that people are not influenced by what they are told? Let''s leave the colored stew aside for a minute but stick with food in general. Do a double blind taste test. Both samples are EXACTLY the same. Tell them sample ''A'' one is made with better ingredients. I guarantee more people will choose sample ''A'' as their favorite.

Date: 7/23/2008 6:47:34 PM

Author: Allison D.

In fact, what are they going to do when I place TWO bowls of stew in front of each diner....one purple and one not purple....and BOTH versions are made by Paul''s mother!!!!!!!!!! Will one taste different than the other then?

No, they will taste the same. But I guarantee that more people will tell you the purple soup is better! Because that''s what they have come to believe.

Hi I''m a newb at diamonds but I''ll share my consumer two cents. When I first started researching diamonds for my engagement ring (still an on-going search), i totally thought that a H&A diamond meant it was better than all other "ideal" cut/Ideal Sym diamonds period. but then i started comparing some AGS(0) non-H&A diamonds to H&A diamonds and saw that some non-H&A diamonds out performed them. I''m still looking at getting a H&A diamond but out of preference not necessarily cause it out performs non-H&A diamonds.

Also another analogy popped into my head as i was reading this thread that could help explain why people would pay more for a H&A stone that doesnt necessarily perform better than a non-H&A stone. its like when people pay more for a brand name product even though they can get the generic brand (far cheaper) and still get the exact same utility out of it. i ran track in college and one of the first things you learn when you run track is that nike makes really crappy quality running shoes... but people still buy them... its counter intuitive but some people will pay more for the brand name than optimize their purchase''s utility. case in point... nike shox.. horrible shoe (causes people to sprain their ankles due to very unstable heel support) but a very successful shoe line.

i could be totally off with that analogy but thats what came to my newb mind.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/23/2008 3:36:57 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

...Japanese would call these patterns ''broken hearts'', and it is a no-no to offer your loved one a stone with broken hearts.

Not much different than cultures that believe in the symbolism (purity or otherwise) of VVS or IF, as opposed to simply eye-clean. Are these people "wrong" for seeking specific clarity/color/patterning? No. Is it the choice everyone will make? No. Different strokes.

As an aside, I am surprised that nobody seems to understand my Belgian stoofvlees-analogy. If you do not, then you have a problem in understanding the value of H&A, I would say.

I may have clouded your stoofvlees saga with vide and bolleke (mmm, bolleke!). Sorry Paul.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/23/2008 7:09:25 PM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/23/2008 6:29:43 PM
Author: Allison D.

Presence of true H&A suggests superior craftsmanship, but lack of presence doesn''t automatically determine inferior craftsmanship.

Agreed. But, 99% of the public does NOT understand that. They think it does in fact determine inferior craftsmanship. That is the only point I am trying to make.

I think a concern here is that "99% of the public" barely scratches the surface of any of this.

The dedicated searchers who wind up hearing-of and learning-about H&A in pedestrian situations (not Pricescope) will almost certainly be told the label indicates superior craftsmanship...and I suspect the tiny fraction of commercial sellers featuring "H&A" stones in their stores will maintain that performance is superior to other goods they stock as well. In most commercial situations that''s likely the case...walk around any diamond district and take a look at commercial cut quality.

It''s the responsibility of the person selling a non H&A diamond with top notch performance to market it effectively. If I had a line of elite H&A (top light performance), elite FICs (top light performance), elite "Vs & As" (top light performance) and elite princess cuts (top light performance) I would make darn sure they were all promoted equally in my store. In the case of the traditional H&A diamond there is a history to lean on...I would take advantage of that, as would anyone. It''s logical.

Consider this: There is no question that AGS grading is equal in strictness to GIA. However (like optically symmetrical cuts that are top performers) the AGS does not enjoy the traditional positioning or resultant global footprint that GIA does because of the history they built (like H&A stones)... It is what it is. Like the H&A movement, the GIA movement has precedence and consistency. Good for them. AGS pundits know the worth of that lab and will continue to work to educate their clients about its merits.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/23/2008 7:09:25 PM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/23/2008 6:29:43 PM
Author: Allison D.

Presence of true H&A suggests superior craftsmanship, but lack of presence doesn't automatically determine inferior craftsmanship.

Agreed. But, 99% of the public does NOT understand that. They think it does in fact determine inferior craftsmanship. That is the only point I am trying to make.

Ok, we're finally getting closer here.

I can agree that some percentage of 'the public' doesn't understand it.....but you cannot undo what is. The demand for H&A stones and the 'allure' of that pattern is a function of marketing of the Japanese product 20 years ago. You aren't going to put Pandora back into that box.....especially when the product DOES typically represent fine craftsmanship.

By the way, 99% of the public doesn't understand the relevance/important of cut proportions, either......and you can't legislate that either. That doesn't mean that cut standards shouldn't exist just because some people won't take the time to learn about and understand them.

It's a fruitless endeavor to spend time trying to protect people from themselves because they don't consider it worth their time to learn about the product they're buying. That doesn't mean the industry as a whole should dismiss standards for excellence in the name of enabling/perpetuating that lack of interest.

For those who want to learn, it's absolutely possible. You're a perfect example; I'm sure you likely heard the same 'H&A is the pinnacle' message; yet you were smart enough to learn that superior craftsmanship wasn't limited to only H&A stones and picked a fantastic non H&A stone of your own. I'm sure this was in no small part due to efforts by your esteemed vendor to explain to you that stones don't have to have hearts to be great performers.

If you were able to grasp that message, I have every confidence that others have that ability as well, especially those who find Pricescope. People who find Pricescope are typically researchers by nature who are vested in learning as part of making a smart purchase. If they're smart enough to find Pricescope, I trust they are smart enough to read and comprehend the wealth of information here and develop their own definition of 'ultimate'.

 

[John P]

Hey Allison - since our posts were within 3 minutes of each other I suspect we were writing at the same time. In fact, my sentiments were along the same lines...but your post is more on-point. Cheers.

 

[strmrdr]

Bottom line is that people can preach and yell from the mountain that "true" h&a is always the best but it will never be true.
The reason is simple 76%-80% lgf% is not the best for every angle combination a RB diamond can be cut to.
That is a fact

and the end of the story.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/23/2008 7:24:29 PM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/23/2008 6:47:34 PM
Author: Allison D.

Jason, believe it or not, there are some people who ARE in search of the purple stew because they''re in Belgium and they want authentic Belgian stew.

That is a VERY small percentage of the stew buying public.

I''ll accept that''s your *opinion*, but unless you''re prepared to back that opinion with data, I''ll likely not accept it at face value. Similarly, it''s the opinion of many professional in the trade that H&A stones are the ultimate, but that require you to accept it at face value.

Date: 7/23/2008 7:24:29 PM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/23/2008 6:47:34 PM
Author: Allison D.

However, let''s run with your position that they do think it''s the best stew in the world. So, then, should you go tell Paul''s mother to stop making her stew with purple food coloring just because it confuses people who can''t grasp that there is more than one kind of great stew?

I absolutely would not. I like the purple stew too.

AND because you likely know that Paul''s mother feels VERY passionately about the purple stew and would likely banish you from her table for suggesting it, leaving you hungry and stew-less.

Date: 7/23/2008 7:24:29 PM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/23/2008 6:47:34 PM
Author: Allison D.

Do you really think that if I go to Paul''s house with MY non-purple stew and ask them to taste both stews that people aren''t bright enough to grasp that both stews are equally good? Not only will some of them agree that my stew is just as good......GASP......some people may even prefer my non-purple stew.

ABSOLUTELY. Do you really, honestly believe that people are not influenced by what they are told? Let''s leave the colored stew aside for a minute but stick with food in general. Do a double blind taste test. Both samples are EXACTLY the same. Tell them sample ''A'' one is made with better ingredients. I guarantee more people will choose sample ''A'' as their favorite.



No, they will taste the same. But I guarantee that more people will tell you the purple soup is better! Because that''s what they have come to believe.

Here is where your analogy falls down. No one has said that Sample A (Hearts and Arrows) is made with BETTER ingredients (symmetry). No one has even said that Sample A is made with better ingredients than Sample B (non-H&A stones). ALL that''s been said is "Sample A is made with the finest quality ingredients available."

That does not make *any* qualitative statements about *any* other sample besides Sample A.

Similarly, saying that H&A stones display the finest (ultimate) optical symmetry possible does not in any way imply that other stones aren''t ALSO capable of displaying ultimate optical symmetry as well.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/23/2008 10:36:51 PM
Author: John Pollard

I think a concern here is that ''99% of the public'' barely scratches the surface of any of this.

The dedicated searchers who wind up hearing-of and learning-about H&A in pedestrian situations (not Pricescope) will almost certainly be told the label indicates superior craftsmanship...and I suspect the tiny fraction of commercial sellers featuring ''H&A'' stones in their stores will maintain that performance is superior to other goods they stock as well. In most commercial situations that''s likely the case...walk around any diamond district and take a look at commercial cut quality.

It''s the responsibility of the person selling a non H&A diamond with top notch performance to market it effectively. If I had a line of elite H&A (top light performance), elite FICs (top light performance), elite ''Vs & As'' (top light performance) and elite princess cuts (top light performance) I would make darn sure they were all promoted equally in my store. In the case of the traditional H&A diamond there is a history to lean on...I would take advantage of that, as would anyone. It''s logical.

Consider this: There is no question that AGS grading is equal in strictness to GIA. However (like optically symmetrical cuts that are top performers) the AGS does not enjoy the traditional positioning or resultant global footprint that GIA does because of the history they built (like H&A stones)... It is what it is. Like the H&A movement, the GIA movement has precedence and consistency. Good for them. AGS pundits know the worth of that lab and will continue to work to educate their clients about its merits.

Amen, brother!

 

[agc]

Date: 7/24/2008 12:05:55 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 7/23/2008 7:24:29 PM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/23/2008 6:47:34 PM
Author: Allison D.

Jason, believe it or not, there are some people who ARE in search of the purple stew because they''re in Belgium and they want authentic Belgian stew.

That is a VERY small percentage of the stew buying public.

I''ll accept that''s your *opinion*, but unless you''re prepared to back that opinion with data, I''ll likely not accept it at face value. Similarly, it''s the opinion of many professional in the trade that H&A stones are the ultimate, but that require you to accept it at face value.

Date: 7/23/2008 7:24:29 PM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/23/2008 6:47:34 PM
Author: Allison D.

However, let''s run with your position that they do think it''s the best stew in the world. So, then, should you go tell Paul''s mother to stop making her stew with purple food coloring just because it confuses people who can''t grasp that there is more than one kind of great stew?

I absolutely would not. I like the purple stew too.

AND because you likely know that Paul''s mother feels VERY passionately about the purple stew and would likely banish you from her table for suggesting it, leaving you hungry and stew-less.

Date: 7/23/2008 7:24:29 PM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/23/2008 6:47:34 PM
Author: Allison D.

Do you really think that if I go to Paul''s house with MY non-purple stew and ask them to taste both stews that people aren''t bright enough to grasp that both stews are equally good? Not only will some of them agree that my stew is just as good......GASP......some people may even prefer my non-purple stew.

ABSOLUTELY. Do you really, honestly believe that people are not influenced by what they are told? Let''s leave the colored stew aside for a minute but stick with food in general. Do a double blind taste test. Both samples are EXACTLY the same. Tell them sample ''A'' one is made with better ingredients. I guarantee more people will choose sample ''A'' as their favorite.



No, they will taste the same. But I guarantee that more people will tell you the purple soup is better! Because that''s what they have come to believe.

Here is where your analogy falls down. No one has said that Sample A (Hearts and Arrows) is made with BETTER ingredients (symmetry). No one has even said that Sample A is made with better ingredients than Sample B (non-H&A stones). ALL that''s been said is ''Sample A is made with the finest quality ingredients available.''

That does not make *any* qualitative statements about *any* other sample besides Sample A.

Similarly, saying that H&A stones display the finest (ultimate) optical symmetry possible does not in any way imply that other stones aren''t ALSO capable of displaying ultimate optical symmetry as well.

Except for the fact that many proponents of H&A''s point out their finest (ultimate) optical symmetry status while not disclosing to the consumer that non H&A can also be finest (ultimate) but they are quick to label the non H&A with the "FAILED H&A" leaving the consumer feeling non H&A are inferior even though they did not come right out and say that. It is implied but has deniability.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/23/2008 8:43:23 PM
Author: agc

Allison, but what happens if people traveling to Belgium are told and shown tutorials that the ultimate/perfect Belgian stew is #10 purple and #13 lavender ''FAILS'' and they do not mention that both stews taste the same and have the exact same ingredients except the ''patterning'' food coloring? Most would go for the #10 and many who tasted both would probably say #10 was far better due to the information they were told about #10 being the ultimate.

AGC, I can''t speak for everyone, so I''ll speak just for myself.

You can bet your last soup tureen that I would emphatically NOT hike my behind from the states all the way over to Belgium (while investing a considerable amount of money in a plane ticket to do so) without researching MYSELF all possible varieties of stew.

Whose responsibility is it to make sure I understand the many kinds of stew available? I think it''s MINE, first and foremost. Furthermore, if I know Paul''s mother is a proven disciple of #10 purple stew, she''s probably not the only opinion I want to seek out! That doesn''t diminish the value of her opinion in and of itself, but it likely means that I''d be smart to seek out other additional opinions about what varieties of stew other people recommend and why.

It''s not the responsibility of Paul''s mother, as the #10 purple stew devoutee, to take it upon herself to tell me how her stew compares to other stews, especially if that''s the stew she prefers to make and believes is the best. Rather, it''s the responsibility of *your* mother, who makes #13 lavender stew and thinks it''s every bit as good as Paul''s mother''s #10 purple, to provide me that information.

I can also assure you that when I''m in the role of consumer, I''m much more compelled to believe your mother''s passion about her lavender stew if she spends her energy emphasizing why she believes the #13 stew is every bit as good as any other fine stew. I''m less inclined to be compelled if her angle is to complain that Paul''s mother shouldn''t be allowed to share her recipe for #10 stew because other people *might* believe it''s the only stew worth making/eating.

 

[agc]

Date: 7/24/2008 12:31:04 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 7/23/2008 8:43:23 PM
Author: agc

Allison, but what happens if people traveling to Belgium are told and shown tutorials that the ultimate/perfect Belgian stew is #10 purple and #13 lavender ''FAILS'' and they do not mention that both stews taste the same and have the exact same ingredients except the ''patterning'' food coloring? Most would go for the #10 and many who tasted both would probably say #10 was far better due to the information they were told about #10 being the ultimate.

AGC, I can''t speak for everyone, so I''ll speak just for myself.

You can bet your last soup tureen that I would emphatically NOT hike my behind from the states all the way over to Belgium (while investing a considerable amount of money in a plane ticket to do so) without researching MYSELF all possible varieties of stew.

Whose responsibility is it to make sure I understand the many kinds of stew available? I think it''s MINE, first and foremost. Furthermore, if I know Paul''s mother is a proven disciple of #10 purple stew, she''s probably not the only opinion I want to seek out! That doesn''t diminish the value of her opinion in and of itself, but it likely means that I''d be smart to seek out other additional opinions about what varieties of stew other people recommend and why.

It''s not the responsibility of Paul''s mother, as the #10 purple stew devoutee, to take it upon herself to tell me how her stew compares to other stews, especially if that''s the stew she prefers to make and believes is the best. Rather, it''s the responsibility of *your* mother, who makes #13 lavender stew and thinks it''s every bit as good as Paul''s mother''s #10 purple, to provide me that information.

I can also assure you that when I''m in the role of consumer, I''m much more compelled to believe your mother''s passion about her lavender stew if she spends her energy emphasizing why she believes the #13 stew is every bit as good as any other fine stew. I''m less inclined to be compelled if her angle is to complain that Paul''s mother shouldn''t be allowed to share her recipe for #10 stew because other people *might* believe it''s the only stew worth making/eating.

It''s a good thing for makers of #10 purple stew that most consumers are not as smart as you and instead just follow the marketing.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/23/2008 7:29:41 PM
Author: Indira-London

It was only once she had made up her mind, that I decided to show her both from a perspective of the H&A viewer: she loved the patterns in both and was pleased that hers had the ''Hearts'' but appreciated that she would never be able to see the patterns when the diamonds were set and when asked whether she would have paid a premium for the real hearts pattern - she replied only if it had meant that the diamond was a better performer!

So like the trees question - whether the heart shape is important seems to depend on whether the client appreciates it or not and its only in the context of better performance (or Romance of the heart shape) that most clients would pay extra for the true H&A patterns.

Since I''m preaching from the pulpit about education, I''d like to take a moment to address what appears to be another rampant (maybe even 99%) misperception. It''s been suggested countless times in this thread that H&A carries a weighty/significant/fill-in-the-adjective-here premium.

Does it?

Not really. I''ll show below with an example; I''m using these two stones only because they are the only two closely matched stones I could find (looking for .75 to 1.25 G, VS2 stones) where one is being offered as an H&A and the other isn''t. (Unfortunately for this example, most of the stones being offered on the cut quality search are billed as H&A, so examples of non-H&A were hard to come by.)

Below are two G, VS stones; one is 1.06 ct., the other 1.08. One is being offered as an H&A, the other is not. And the premium being assessed for the H&A designation is.................exactly $0.00. Both stones are *identically* priced.

I have no doubt that the non H&A stone performs (light performance) every bit as good as the H&A counterpart, which is likely why it commands the same price.

Performance is what dictates the premium, not the patterning. More on that in the next post......

 

[Allison D.]

So if performance (top-make) is what drives the premium, then why do so many people perceive the premium to be attached to H&A?

Because although not ALWAYS true, it''s overwhelmingly so that most true H&A stones are *also* top performers. Why? Because there is a symbiotic relationship between the pattern and performance largely built in by economics.

True H&A tolerances, as many have pointed out, are VERY tough to achieve. It takes a significant amount of time to craft a perfect H&A pattern. From a profit standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense to invest the considerable time needed to craft the pattern on stones that are otherwise performance deficient. The time invested wouldn''t produce the return needed to cover the expense.

Put another way.......if we factor out the ''eccentrics'', people who have a taste for fine caviar wouldn''t spend two weeks sourcing fine caviar and invest $1600/ounce to obtain it........and then slap it on a Ritz cracker.

(No disrepect intended to the manufacturers of the fine Ritz cracker by any means; while delightful in its own right, it''s just not going to be the likely vessel upon which to heap $1600/ounce caviar).

Since it takes considerable time (which means $$ investment) to produce perfect hearts & arrows, it wouldn''t make sense to do so on stones that wouldn''t *also* be highly prized for top-performance.

Hence, most H&A stones are ALSO top makes....and carry the associated premium for being top makes, not for the H&A pattern.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

While I was sleeping, my whole stew-analogy is clouded by changing it into a colour-thing and not a taste or flavor-issue.

In food, tastes are culturally defined. This limits our ability to experience and appreciate certain tastes. Some people do appreciate them, but lack the words (again culture) to define what they tasted.

Live long,

 

[jasontb]

Date: 7/24/2008 12:05:55 AM
Author: Allison D.

Similarly, saying that H&A stones display the finest (ultimate) optical symmetry possible does not in any way imply that other stones aren''t ALSO capable of displaying ultimate optical symmetry as well.

You *really* believe that? Yikes.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/24/2008 2:54:56 AM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/24/2008 12:05:55 AM
Author: Allison D.

Similarly, saying that H&A stones display the finest (ultimate) optical symmetry possible does not in any way imply that other stones aren''t ALSO capable of displaying ultimate optical symmetry as well.

You *really* believe that? Yikes.

You *really* don''t? Yikes to the second power.

So, I guess if you say that you find blondes to be the epitome of cute, that means redheads can''t *also* be cute?

(Be careful here.......I''m a redhead.

)

 

[jasontb]

Date: 7/24/2008 3:06:50 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 7/24/2008 2:54:56 AM

Author: jasontb

Date: 7/24/2008 12:05:55 AM

Author: Allison D.


Similarly, saying that H&A stones display the finest (ultimate) optical symmetry possible does not in any way imply that other stones aren''t ALSO capable of displaying ultimate optical symmetry as well.

You *really* believe that? Yikes.

You *really* don''t? Yikes to the second power.

So, I guess if you say that you find blondes to be the epitome of cute, that means redheads can''t *also* be cute?


(Be careful here.......I''m a redhead.

)

If I say that I find blondes to be the epitome of cute, it *does in fact* imply that readheads cannot also be the epitome of cute.

You need to be careful with these weak analogies where you fail to identify the subtle details that are in fact the crux of one''s argument.

 

[whatmeworry]

Serg,
Do you have any virtual examples of these low symmetry/high performing diamonds that you can share with us?

 

[agc]

Date: 7/24/2008 12:50:46 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 7/23/2008 7:29:41 PM
Author: Indira-London

It was only once she had made up her mind, that I decided to show her both from a perspective of the H&A viewer: she loved the patterns in both and was pleased that hers had the ''Hearts'' but appreciated that she would never be able to see the patterns when the diamonds were set and when asked whether she would have paid a premium for the real hearts pattern - she replied only if it had meant that the diamond was a better performer!

So like the trees question - whether the heart shape is important seems to depend on whether the client appreciates it or not and its only in the context of better performance (or Romance of the heart shape) that most clients would pay extra for the true H&A patterns.

Since I''m preaching from the pulpit about education, I''d like to take a moment to address what appears to be another rampant (maybe even 99%) misperception. It''s been suggested countless times in this thread that H&A carries a weighty/significant/fill-in-the-adjective-here premium.

Does it?

Not really. I''ll show below with an example; I''m using these two stones only because they are the only two closely matched stones I could find (looking for .75 to 1.25 G, VS2 stones) where one is being offered as an H&A and the other isn''t. (Unfortunately for this example, most of the stones being offered on the cut quality search are billed as H&A, so examples of non-H&A were hard to come by.)

Below are two G, VS stones; one is 1.06 ct., the other 1.08. One is being offered as an H&A, the other is not. And the premium being assessed for the H&A designation is.................exactly $0.00. Both stones are *identically* priced.

I have no doubt that the non H&A stone performs (light performance) every bit as good as the H&A counterpart, which is likely why it commands the same price.

Performance is what dictates the premium, not the patterning. More on that in the next post......

That''s good to hear. Can you get me a ACA (2.5-3 ct G-H VS2) for the price of your expert selection since expert selection just missed on patterning but are top performers?

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/24/2008 3:18:23 AM
Author: jasontb

Date: 7/24/2008 3:06:50 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 7/24/2008 2:54:56 AM

Author: jasontb

Date: 7/24/2008 12:05:55 AM

Author: Allison D.


Similarly, saying that H&A stones display the finest (ultimate) optical symmetry possible does not in any way imply that other stones aren''t ALSO capable of displaying ultimate optical symmetry as well.

You *really* believe that? Yikes.

You *really* don''t? Yikes to the second power.

So, I guess if you say that you find blondes to be the epitome of cute, that means redheads can''t *also* be cute?


(Be careful here.......I''m a redhead.

)

If I say that I find blondes to be the epitome of cute, it *does in fact* imply that readheads cannot also be the epitome of cute.

You need to be careful with these weak analogies where you fail to identify the subtle details that are in fact the crux of one''s argument.

I''m sorry this still isn''t resonating with you, despite my best efforts. Since it isn''t, let me explain the analogy.

Since the criteria for the epitome of cute is *subjective* and not factual, it is *absolutely* possible that redheads MAY INDEED be the epitome of cute to others, depending on *their* individual preferences.

The fact that *you* would prefer blondes doesn''t automatically mean that redheads or brunettes are NOT cute, nor should it imply that anyone else who dates them should feel as though their dates are less cute because they aren''t blonde.

If you produced a summary of what you felt constituted the best examples of blonde, it would have meaning to others who appreciate blondes but *wouldn''t* likely resonate those who don''t place emphasis on a woman''s hair color or using that haircolor to make assumptions about probably personality traits.

 

[risingsun]

The H&A diamonds offered by our PS vendors are also top performing stones. I sent my ACA to a respected independent appraiser and he verified this for me in the choice of my diamond. He also told me that I would not be compromising if I purchased an ACA instead of a HOF diamond. I paid a premium for the H&A, the G VS2 color and clarity, and the superior optical symmetry. If anyone asks why did you make these choices, the answer is that's the way, the way, the way I like it

It's my preference. For those who don't find value in a top performing H&A, don't buy one, but please stop beating this dead horse. It's gone way beyond helpful or educational to keep going over the same ground. It's also not that difficult to understand. Remarks in blue are not directed toward our vendors, who have done their best to educate on this topic

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/23/2008 11:56:12 PM
Author: strmrdr
Bottom line is that people can preach and yell from the mountain that ''true'' h&a is always the best but it will never be true.
The reason is simple 76%-80% lgf% is not the best for every angle combination a RB diamond can be cut to.
That is a fact

and the end of the story.

Storm H&A''s has never been a guarantee of anything other than symmetry.
H&A''s can be painted too much, they can be too steep/deep.
And no-one to my knowledge has poroven that H&A''s are better looking than other well poportioned diamonds with very good optical symmetry.

it is a mind clean thing, surely?

so if the debate is "what is the definition of H&A''s" then the quality of appearance is null and void

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Forgive me, but I cannot resist the urge to intervene. With all due respect, I think that this thread has gone out-of-hand, and is not offering any true information anymore. I tried to go back to basics with my analogy, but that was a complete failure.

1. Performance

There are many aspects to light performance of a diamond, and we need to consider which ones we understand and which we don’t. As such, scintillation has not been sufficiently studied by labs and scientists, and few people understand it. AGS has released parts of its scintillation-studies, and I am anxiously awaiting for them to finish it.
When talking about the performance of H&A (or other symmetrical contrast-precision-patterns), the extra performance is in scintillation. It is very hard to prove it in brilliance or fire. I do also think that Diamcalc for instance does not truly measure scintillation, and we need to understand these limitations.

Thus, please remember, performance of H&A (or other symmetrical CP-patterns) is in scintillation.

2. Performance of H&A

Unfortunately, it is possible to obtain a H&A-pattern in a wide area of proportion-sets. This opens the door to stones with inferiorly performing proportion-sets being touted as the best because of them exhibiting a H&A-pattern. True, that stone probably offers a much better scintillation than the same proportion-set without a H&A-pattern, but it may be less good in brilliance and fire. That is why one should not consider H&A on its own, but see it as part of the whole package, in which the proportion-set and the consistency within that proportion-set are other major factors.

Thus, when comparing a generic brilliant to a generic H&A, it is entirely possible that the H&A is not as performing. This is because it has the pattern, adding to scintillation, but a less performing proportion-set. I think that it is also because of such crooked comparisons that many do not attach any performance-value to the pattern.

3. Value of H&A

Value is generally a personal decision, where market-value is a result of a lot of personal value-decisions. In the case of H&A, there are a lot of personal decisions being made outside of the PS-community, that influence value. For instance, the Japanese have a very precise feeling for which pattern they consider H&A and which not. For them, a ‘perfect’ pattern has value, where a ‘close to perfect’ pattern has no value, regardless whether this includes a performance-difference.

4. Uniqueness of the H&A-pattern

I have never been an advocate of the H&A-pattern, it just happens to be coming out of our production. But I do not believe that it is the unique pattern which improves scintillation. As you can see, in princess-cuts, we are talking about a totally different C&P-pattern, which is just as effective.

To summarize and to go back to the OP.

Is this pattern H&A? No, simply because the world out there does not regard this pattern as H&A.
Is it improving performance? Probably, it is a very symmetrical CP-pattern, and with the correct proportion-set, it will probably be a killer. To study the difference in scintillation with a H&A of the same proportions, we probably need to await the finalization of the AGS scintillation-studies.
And do never forget that H&A (or another CP-pattern) effects scintillation. You will not see the difference in HCA, Diamcalc, Ideal-scope, ASET, BS, Isee-2, and so on. I do not know how effective GemAdvisor is in showing this. Therefore, I do suggest comparing this visually.
Live long,

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 7/24/2008 9:15:53 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 7/23/2008 11:56:12 PM
Author: strmrdr
Bottom line is that people can preach and yell from the mountain that ''true'' h&a is always the best but it will never be true.
The reason is simple 76%-80% lgf% is not the best for every angle combination a RB diamond can be cut to.
That is a fact

and the end of the story.

Storm H&A''s has never been a guarantee of anything other than symmetry.
H&A''s can be painted too much, they can be too steep/deep.
And no-one to my knowledge has poroven that H&A''s are better looking than other well poportioned diamonds with very good optical symmetry.

it is a mind clean thing, surely?

so if the debate is ''what is the definition of H&A''s'' then the quality of appearance is null and void

Amen to that.

and ditto Paul "With all due respect, I think that this thread has gone out-of-hand, and is not offering any true information anymore. I tried to go back to basics with my analogy, but that was a complete failure."

 

[WinkHPD]

Just to make sure that any new readers are not confused by this.

The question is,"Is this diamond a true Hearts and Arrows cut diamond?"

Anywhere that I know of in the industry, OTHER THAN PRICESCOPE, this would not even be a question. This stone is NOT a H&A. Period. Period. End of discussion. Period.

Performance was NOT the question asked, and is not pertinent to the original question, even though there is little doubt that the diamond is very nice and possibly a top performer, it is simply NOT in the well-defined traditional category we call H&A and any attempt to make it one is disingenuous and contrary to respect for historical and current standards.

Wink

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/24/2008 7:49:01 AM
Author: agc

Date: 7/24/2008 12:50:46 AM
Author: Allison D.


Since I'm preaching from the pulpit about education, I'd like to take a moment to address what appears to be another rampant (maybe even 99%) misperception. It's been suggested countless times in this thread that H&A carries a weighty/significant/fill-in-the-adjective-here premium.

Does it?

Not really. I'll show below with an example; I'm using these two stones only because they are the only two closely matched stones I could find (looking for .75 to 1.25 G, VS2 stones) where one is being offered as an H&A and the other isn't. (Unfortunately for this example, most of the stones being offered on the cut quality search are billed as H&A, so examples of non-H&A were hard to come by.)

Below are two G, VS stones; one is 1.06 ct., the other 1.08. One is being offered as an H&A, the other is not. And the premium being assessed for the H&A designation is.................exactly $0.00. Both stones are *identically* priced.

I have no doubt that the non H&A stone performs (light performance) every bit as good as the H&A counterpart, which is likely why it commands the same price.

Performance is what dictates the premium, not the patterning. More on that in the next post......

That's good to hear. Can you get me a ACA (2.5-3 ct G-H VS2) for the price of your expert selection since expert selection just missed on patterning but are top performers?

This query is getting well beyond what the original poster queried about (what constitutes true H&A), so I'll try to keep my response to this brief but helpful.

1. Expert Selection is not about "top performers that just missed an H&A pattern". Expert Selection stones have always been truthfully represented as goods that offer "value for the money". That's the only goal of Expert Selection.

Goods in that class can range from top-performers that were rejected by Brian to carry the A Cut Above brand (more on that below) on down through goods that are somewhat less than top performers but still represent an excellent value for the money. We make no misrepresentation on this; we believe in transparency and clearly outline this in on our website in this section called "'A Cut Above' and Expert Selection: What's the Difference?". You're welcome to read it here: http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds_info/t/all_about.aspx?articleid=127&zoneid=22

Commonly, goods at higher end of that range aren't priced substantially different than other top-performing goods (branded or unbranded). Goods that move further away from top performers enjoy a steeper reduction in price.

2. ES stones don't carry top-flight paper (the AGS DQD); they typically carry either the AGS DQR or a GIA report, which also impacts price as those reports aren't as desirable as the AGS DQD.

3. A Cut Above is a brand; displaying a true H&A pattern is but one of the elements required for inclusion in the brand. In order the qualify for the brand, a diamond must meet AGS0 parameters (every ACA carries an AGS0 DQD report); it must display superior optical symmetry. It must display Visual Balance and optimal light return throughout all lighting conditions.

Stones can be rejected for the brand by failiing on any one of the required elements. Sometimes the rejected stones will still be top performers; other times, they might not.

The discussion about branding is a whole 'nother topic that really should have its own thread if you really want to get into an indepth discussion about branding. However, purposes of this thread, it's enough to say that not all true H&A stones are branded (although many may be), and that most people fully grasp that branding can carry its own premium (due to cost to market/develop the brand, etc.)

So, to answer your question, it's unlikely that a top-performing ES stone that missed the ACA brand due only to patterning will realize much of a reduction in price, but we'll be happy to work on sourcing it for you whenever you're ready.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 7/24/2008 11:23:34 AM
Author: Wink
Just to make sure that any new readers are not confused by this.

The question is,''Is this diamond a true Hearts and Arrows cut diamond?''

Anywhere that I know of in the industry, OTHER THAN PRICESCOPE, this would not even be a question. This stone is NOT a H&A. Period. Period. End of discussion. Period.

Performance was NOT the question asked, and is not pertinent to the original question, even though there is little doubt that the diamond is very nice and possibly a top performer, it is simply NOT in the well-defined traditional category we call H&A and any attempt to make it one is disingenuous and contrary to respect for historical and current standards.

Wink

And in the time that it took me between other tasks to craft my response above, it appears that the thread is well back on track.

I heartily agree with every last letter of Wink''s quoted post.

 

[Regular Guy]

In consideration of Obama''s pastoral difficulties (i.e., he is not his pastor), I hesitate to bring this up, but...Wink...with respect to your recent comment that "it is simply NOT in the well-defined traditional category we call H&A and any attempt to make it one is disingenuous and contrary to respect for historical and current standards....", and your earlier rejoinder...

Date: 7/18/2008 11:13:06 AM
Author: Wink

I have used them (PGS) and fourd their color and clarity grading to be very good, I have also taken them to task about some of the stones they call H&A. I had completely forgotten about them last evening and this morning when I posted, but I question whether or not they would call these H&A, I suspect not.

Wink

I did find the earlier reference on the "Carte Blu."

And...since I''m curious about Paul''s valuation of H&A, and it''s ability to bring forward scintillation, and as well, Serg''s valuation, where he describes:

"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)"

...I wonder how much hypothetical variation we might expect in discernible performance from even this bad example, as compared to what are unambiguously called H&A.

Personally...and I''m betting most readers are with me on this...regardless of the perfect standards that experts are now seeming to agree on with respect to the meaning of H&A...I would continue to be looking for the associated performance value associated with this characteristic. If the outcome is (by a sensible measure) close enough (oy...) to the same (between say the good & bad example), I believe I would be willing to assert my own value system over the experts, and take the lesser option for the discount (and though Allison may have successfully shown the discount is negligible...the premium can always reassert itself).

Then again, I''ve also already expressed my preferences in my own shopping now pretty long ago purchase...so nothing new here.

with regards,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/24/2008 9:33:12 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Thus, please remember, performance of H&A (or other symmetrical CP-patterns) is in scintillation.

*opinion alert*
I do not believe that to be true.
For rounds only:
If you base scintillation performance on the size of events then single cuts win.
If you base scintillation performance on the amount of flashes then extra facet cuts win.
At 3ct size a star129 has far more separate and visible scintillation events than a h&a RB of the same size.
In smaller sizes I believe that the larger scintillation events of an RB are better than the smaller events of a star129 because the separation between events is larger and more visible.

There are at least 8 components of scintillation.
Direction
Intensity
Separation
Fire
Contrast
Distribution
Visible Size of event
Number

These are controlled by:
Direction - c/p angles and lgf% and crown height and location of virtual facets.

Intensity - c/p angles and size of virtual facets

Separation - virtual facet size and location

Fire - light path and crown height and virtual facets

Contrast - virtual facet location and reaction

Distribution - optical symmetry (uniform location of virtual facets)

Number - virtual facets, you will not get more events than there are virtual facets at any given time. (take a picture of the events with a shutter speed fast enough to freeze motion and there will not be more events than virtual facets.)

Visible Size of event - virtual facet size with a mix of Separation, Distribution, Intensity and Number as modifiers.

Only Distribution would be directly improved by better optical symmetry.
Indirectly optical symmetry's effect on virtual facet size location would have an effect on scintillation.

That concludes storms short course on scintillation :}

 

[WinkHPD]

Storm,

You are continuing to obfuscate the issue at hand. Is this a Hearts and Arrows cut diamond by any commonly accepted definition on the planet?

The answer is "NO".

Wink