Talk:Hearts and arrows

February 2007

What's a hearts and arrows viewer? -- Sy / ^(talk)

It's a device that makes the hearts and arrows pattern visible (or more visible than it is without the viewer.)--Srleffler 06:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is a distorted history (see previous spam already deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EightStar ) and a magnet for spammy links. There are hundreds if not thousands of Jewelers selling Hearts and Arrows. And plenty of manufacturers too. Heck plenty of Viewers too. Manufacturers and even Jewelers trying to promote their own viewer as the best. Who won't desire a link? In my opinion only the owner of the Hearts and Arrows name should get a link. And even better if you stick to Internal Links only in this article... GilbertZ 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Even the mention is spammy - unless the claim can be attributed to a reliable source - Tiswas^(t) 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost me. The mention of what is spammy? Do you mean this entire page? GilbertZ 05:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The mention of EightStar - The references are merely namedropping of an otherwise non-notable company - Tiswas^(t) 08:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. True but that's not the only one. Pretty much all the external links here are spam. Someone removed the spam notation but it needs more cleaning. And it's sad that with all these people "helping out" this category with external links, not one even bothered to drop the one link that might be relevant...the one for the company named Hearts and Arrows. GilbertZ 17:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did a huge overhaul and removed all remotely spam-related links and notations. I can't believe how much advertising was going on here! Someone (it'll probably end up being me...) needs to link to websites that DO NOT promote OR sell OR link to diamond sellers. I reccomend the Gemological Institute of America and American Gem Society laboratory websites. Though AGS does endorse jewelry stores, so I guess it's GIA all the way? But AGS is sought after for their cut grade reports...ah well. IGI does Hearts and Arrows Ideal Cut reports too, they might have some technical information. Malachite84 06:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading the article, I expected exactly this. While the links may be gone, it still reads a bit like a brochure. I see a couple tweaks I can do to escape that. -Verdatum (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So on review, this article, and the article it links to AGS ideal cut diamonds need a lot of work. The article is in conflict in terms of scope. In one section they say it is debatable what is and is not a Hearts and Arrows diamond, and in another section, they say it is a copyrighted (effectively trademarked) term. So the word has two meanings. It seems to refer to the patterns visible in certain cuts of diamonds that appear as hearts and arrows, and it refers to the licensed diamonds that have the specific cut that maximizes the appearance of these patterns. The article should be rewritten accordingly...but to be honest, I just don't care enough about it. -Verdatum (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

picture

Just a visitor stopping by, but a picture of this phenom. would double the value of the article. Piratejosh85 (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Agreed, a picture, or better yet, a set of diagrams. -another visitor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.149.230 (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I clicked on the link just hoping to see a picture. Meh222 (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As did I, meh222. Might see if I can find one. At least I try (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

"Heart and Arrow" copyright

This article claims that someone owns the copyright on the term "Heart and Arrow." The claim is supported by a reference to a website. I recognize the website: Good Old Gold, a well-known jeweler in New York state. As much as I like Good Old Gold (and their educational videos on diamonds) this is not a reliable secondary source.

From what little I know about copyright law, you can't copyright something that short. I think the lower limit is something like 7 or 8 words. Someone could have obtained a trademark (not copyright) on the term, but that conflicts with the fact that I see it used by so many jewelers without being challenged. When jewelers try to sell "Tiffany settings" they immediately hear from Tiffany & Co.'s lawyers and have to change it to "Tiffany-style setting." If a jeweler's website says "Diamonds are Forever," they get a cease-and-desist order from De Beers. So I'm guessing there's no trademark on Hearts and Arrows.

Incidentally, I think the topic of this article is legitimate, but it could use some mention of the controversy over whether anyone can see the difference in terms of light performance. The difference can certainly be measured, but there's a big debate about whether that translates into anything that can be seen with the naked eye. (Then again, the same could be said for any color higher than F, or any clarity grade higher than VS2.) Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

James Allen "True Hearts"

While doing linkspam removal I want to be careful not to delete links to jewelers' websites if the page being linked to is informative, notable, etc., at least until we find better sources. In the case of James Allen, the page link to just shows what his "True Hearts" look like. The problem is, James Allen "True Hearts" are no truer than Blue Nile's Signature Ideal. In either case, they are just AGS-000 stones that happen to vaguely resemble H&As. Thus, I am going to remove the link, but just wanted to explain why here. link Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Proportion factors

There is a claim of H&A "tak[ing] up to three times longer to cut diamonds of this quality and nearly 15% greater waste of the original diamond rough material is lost" that is referenced to a (H&A) diamond selling site.

This is not a reliable source nor is it reliably reported: first of all the site says "A standard “ideal cut” diamond can take on average an hour to polish. Compare this to a H&A ideal cut diamond that can take up to four days" - that is not three times; it's somewhere between 24 and 72 times (3 working days of 8 hours, or 3 actual days of 24 hours).

Through links in industry I can testify that the yield difference is nowhere near this large (and it depends on what the difference is from: an indifferently cut princess cut, or a superbly cut - but non H&A - round?), while the claim of "three times the work" is probably reasonable, however this is definitely anecdotal and original research. I am unable to find reliable secondary sources on this, but will keep looking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.172.36 (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt your knowledge or your connections and what they tell you, but you are countering what you describe as "anecdotal and original research", with anecdotes and original research. Just saying, and I mean no offence.

I'm disappointed that you haven't found anything to refute the claims in the article; they seem ridiculous and I'd love to know the real figures. With your knowledge, and ability to fact check what you read with people in the industry, I think you could really turn this into a quality piece.

I can't find anything online that says it takes an hour to cut a diamond, and it does seem exceptionally quick; it amounts to just over one minute per facet. Conversely, at around 85 minutes per facet, 72 hours seems equally ridiculous. Three working days, or 24 hours in total, roughly 25 minutes per facet, seems reasonable, but I don't have anything to base that on, other than a feeling.

If you're still interested in "polishing" this article, that would be "brilliant" (puns intentional).

At least I try (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no picture

It's astonishing to me that there's no photo of what this phenomenon looks like. I'm assuming that the reason no one adds a picture is that the whole thing is quite disappointing to look at. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)