Talk:Hearts and arrows

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: February 2007

message: 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)
thread_title: picture

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Heart and Arrow" copyright 

message: 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)
thread_title:  James Allen "True Hearts" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proportion factors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  There's no picture