ACA vs. Excellent cut

[rungirl]

Thank you all for the detailed explanations, that has been very helpful and educational. @whitewave, those videos are incredible and I really appreciate seeing them!

I am hoping that, once life returns to normal post-pandemic, I get a chance to see a super ideal in person at a local retailer.

 

[LLJsmom]

Exactly. This is my K. It never “looks” like a K. (The IG video is better than these pics though)

@cflutist has pics of her HPD diamonds in super low light, and to me that is where super ideals spend their money. They will outshine and outperform in very low lighting conditions because they are cut so well that they efficiently take in any light, even hardly any, and shine brightly and put on a show.

So well put!

@cflutist has pics of her HPD diamonds in super low light, and to me that is where super ideals spend their money.

 

[whitewave]

Thank you all for the detailed explanations, that has been very helpful and educational. @whitewave, those videos are incredible and I really appreciate seeing them!

I am hoping that, once life returns to normal post-pandemic, I get a chance to see a super ideal in person at a local retailer.

They truly are a thing of beauty to behold. I‘m glad you found my videos informative.

As I mentioned, not all of my rounds are super ideal. I somewhat ”regret” (regret is a strong word) them. In other words, if I were able to start over, I would start over with super ideals because of their better trade up policies.

I have never regretted my super ideals, even ones I won’t ever trade up with like the side stones on my sapphire ring (hpd) and the side stones on my aquamarine ring (Brian Gavin).

 

[LLJsmom]

They truly are a thing of beauty to behold. I‘m glad you found my videos informative.

As I mentioned, not all of my rounds are super ideal. I somewhat ”regret” (regret is a strong word) them. In other words, if I were able to start over, I would start over with super ideals because of their better trade up policies.

I have never regretted my super ideals, even ones I won’t ever trade up with like the side stones on my sapphire ring (hpd) and the side stones on my aquamarine ring (Brian Gavin).

Spouting truths today, for me anyway... @whitewave

I have never regretted my super ideals, even ones I won’t ever trade up

 

[whitewave]

Although I don't foresee myself upgrading if I get a new diamond, the Whiteflash upgrade policy is really too attractive to dismiss. That, their in-house inventory and their ease of online shopping (full certs readily available) is really why I landed on them as my preferred vendor. I also just had a very pleasant experience with them on a DBTY bracelet so it seemed worth it to work with them on what will likely be my largest jewelry purchase ever.

Definitely. I’m very excited for you and I can’t wait to see what you get. Also, we are going to need 100 hand shots lol

 

[whitewave]

Spouting truths today, for me anyway... @whitewave

I have never regretted my super ideals, even ones I won’t ever trade up

The truths are certainly freely flowing today— and I‘ve been pretty quiet lately.

 

[mx5_dvr]

To be honest, you are very misinformed. My HPD K color I think it’s SI1 has absolutely zero diminished performance and has scintillation and fire edge to edge.

While we prefer to welcome and include newbies, this is a hardcore website basically and you might need to exit this thread and make a new one for your discussion points. I say this with kindness.

The “4 C’s” You mention is an arbitrary marketing term, and one where cut is usually misconstrued to mean shape..

We all know color is judged from side, not from top down. Tilt your diamond 45 degree and see it under diffused office environment.... K is K...

I am not talking about average cut vs super ideal cut. I challenge you, or any experts who disagree with me to provide a concrete comparison (video or something) between a super ideal cut vs some excellent/ideal cuts which have similar proportions to my example of 1.32 ct G VS2, in terms of light performance. I will never believe your HPD K will look as white as this 1.32ct G (under all light conditions and all angles) !

I could all be wrong and I would gladly accept that, as long as there is concrete evidence to prove that.

 

[whitewave]

Co

We all know color is judged from side, not from top down. Tilt your diamond 45 degree and see it under diffused office environment.... K is K...

I am not talking about average cut vs super ideal cut. I challenge you, or any experts who disagree with me to provide a concrete comparison (video or something) between a super ideal cut vs some excellent/ideal cuts which have similar proportions to my example of 1.32 ct G VS2, in terms of light performance. I will never believe your HPD K will look as white as this 1.32ct G (under all light conditions and all angles) !

I could all be wrong and I would gladly accept that, as long as there is concrete evidence to prove that.

(Bangs head on wall again)


color is judged upside down and unset

I’m sorry to say this bluntly, but please stop posting on this thread. Make your own.

 

[LLJsmom]

@whitewave - help me...

 

[mx5_dvr]

Co


color is judged upside down and unset

Yes, but still from the side view ! But never like you showed top down view !

 

[lovedogs]

We all know color is judged from side, not from top down. Tilt your diamond 45 degree and see it under diffused office environment.... K is K...

I am not talking about average cut vs super ideal cut. I challenge you, or any experts who disagree with me to provide a concrete comparison (video or something) between a super ideal cut vs some excellent/ideal cuts which is similar to my example of 1.32 ct G VS2, in terms of light performance. I will never believe your HPD K will look as white as this 1.32ct G (under all light conditions and all angles) !

I could all be wrong and I would gladly accept that, as long as there is concrete evidence to prove that.

No one said that a K would look "As white" as a G in all lighting conditions. And the 1.3G you posted is fine, but without any advanced images there's literally zero guarantee it will be a top performer. With WF, you know what you are getting with zero uncertainty. This one is cheaper and better than the one you posted (because it has advanced images: https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4248575.htm?#)

You seem to refuse to understand the point, and continue to hijack OPs thread, which is rude.

 

[whitewave]

Yes, but still from the side view ! But never like you showed top down view !

UPSIDE DOWN.

My god, please stop!!!!!!!!

 

[whitewave]

@whitewave - help me...

Lord, I’m going to need to take a break. Too much ignorance here, though I think we are getting mansplained lol. Is it too early to start drinking? It’s 5:00 somewhere, right?

 

[mx5_dvr]

UPSIDE DOWN.

My god, please stop!!!!!!!!

Why don't you stop ?

 

[lovedogs]

Why don't you stop ?

You are giving misinformation as though it is a fact. If you had said, "I personally prefer stones whiter than H", and "I personally can't tell the difference between XXX and super ideals", we wouldn't care. But the argument that others can't is provably false, and deserved to be called out for the nonsense it is.

 

[mx5_dvr]

You are giving misinformation as though it is a fact. If you had said, "I personally prefer stones whiter than H", and "I personally can't tell the difference between XXX and super ideals", we wouldn't care. But the argument that others can't is provably false, and deserved to be called out for the nonsense it is.

I said "I think", "I don't think", "I could be wrong", "I want to be educated" with concrete evidence. I never said it's a fact or anything like that.

I never showed a face up picture saying how white it looks than actually rated. This is exactly the misinformation here.

Your example of WF is at H color which demands less premium than G color. So, you can't say it's cheaper overall.

My whole point is that, after certain point, anything better may not be significant or eye noticeable hence return on investment is diminished. This not only applies to color/clarity but also cut. It's a balance of 5 things: size, cut, color, clarity, and price.

Anyone can do whatever he/she wants since it's his/her money in the end.

This is my last post in this thread...

 

[LLJsmom]

I said "I think", "I don't think", "I could be wrong", "I want to be educated" with concrete evidence. I never said it's a fact or anything like that.

I never showed a face up picture saying how white it looks than actually rated. This is exactly the misinformation here.

Your example of WF is at H color which demands less premium than G color. So, you can't say it's cheaper overall.

My whole point is that, after certain point, anything better may not be significant or eye noticeable hence return on investment is dimished. This not only applies to color/clarity but also cut. It's a balance of 5 things: size, cut, color, clarity, and price.

Anyone can do whatever he/she wants since it's his/her money in the end.

This is my last post in this thread...

This was you:

I got one from James Allen and I have no regrets. You can get a good one from James Allen you just need to wait for an opportunity. I don’t think WF is worth it since at certain point, even cut wise, anything better is not that noticeable, like color and clarity.

I shared my personal experience. And you want me to prove it? I bought a super ideal because I did notice the difference and it was worth it to me. But that does not count because it doesn’t fit the rule you set? Sure. Whatever.

sorry @adlgel I’m derailing your thread. You’ve figured it out what you want and that’s what matters.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I hesitate to weigh in on this because it is a bit 'lively", and because some of our diamonds have been mentioned. If my comments are seen as promotional I'm sure the mods will take care of it. But since our brand is in the subject line, and since there have been some assertions in the thread that incremental cut quality at the upper levels is not significant, I think the following comments are fair and relevant to the general discussion.

Diamond cutters don’t make compromises to proportions or optical precision in order to make more beautiful diamonds. They do so to reduce cost/increase yield (make more profit), and because their market is ok with it. Precision cutting for optimal performance is a choice some manufacturers make that involves more time, requires more skill, and results in more weight loss from the rough. They would not bear these additional costs if it did not have an impact on quality.

"Good enough" diamonds are fine for many people. Especially those not aware that something better exists, or that it can make a demonstrable difference to the light performance. The diamond industry as a whole has been driven by yield from the beginning, and the quest for optimal beauty has traditionally been de-prioritized. That has begun to change with the revolution in instrumentation and information technology that makes precision cutting more feasible, and more widely known to the public. But the momentum in the market for good enough diamonds is still strong. Those in the trade dedicated to a philosophy of beauty over weight are still a decided minority.

With most sellers offering primarily a selection of good enough diamonds and representing them as being the best value, the general public is largely unaware of the full range available to them. Changing the status quo is a slow process, but it is happening. Cutting got a lot better when GIA finally released their overall cut grade. But the Excellent category is broad enough to allow for incremental qualities that are even better within that range. Ideals and super ideals are both possible AND valued by consumers who have seen and understand them.

 

[sledge]

If I understand it correctly, ACA has no fluro whereas expert selection might have fluro, but the fluro itself would bump it out of ACA title to expert selection.

I personally like fluro and sometimes will go out of my way to find it as it is a neat party trick and has a nice discount with it.

ACA's meet strict requirements set forth here. Short version is narrow set of proportions, AGS000 cert, strict symmetry standards, negligible fluor & no clarity issues that impede light performance.

ES (expert select) are "near miss" ACA's that still have AGS000 certification. Might include imperfect symmetry standards, a proportion outside the normal range, slightly less awesome light performance, etc. Technically a medium+ level of fluor would qualify as ES, but WF doesn't offer a particular line for fluor stones.

The PS (premium select) kind of bleeds ACA & ES together, with the primary difference being PS stones have GIA certification as opposed to AGS. Just like the ACA & ES lines, they come fully imaged and IMO some of the best cut GIA stones you can buy.

If you are looking for a super ideal that focuses uniquely on fluorescence, then BGD has their Blue line where all stones have medium+ levels of blue fluor, and have all been carefully vetted to ensure none of the negative effects of fluor is presence. While trade policy is good at BGD, it's not as free flowing as WF as it requires you upgrade 2 of 3 C's each time you upgrade.

About a year or so back, I saw a CBI with fluor. I can't remember if it was medium or strong. I think it was listed at the Antwerp dealer site. It was a rarity. Apparently CBI had a few early stones with fluor, but very very few.

Poorly cut diamonds or diamonds with BMG body tones trade for less money than better cut diamonds with no BGM. Fluorescence also trades for less, but that is an arbitrary industry standard.

BTW, BMG isn’t designated on certificates with colors from D-J iirc.

VC has a great article about body undertones. Here is a chart that I frequently share that quickly helps identify how undertones are/are not reported.

if I want to upgrade these with Blue Nile, I have to spend another 5k (10k total cost for the set) which is more than I want to spend.

In the end, it’s so much easier to buy a super ideal diamond because they are in house and have already been vetted.

Bingo. It may not be the first upgrade with a vendor like JA or BN that hurts. It will be the 2nd or 3rd. Not to mention the flexibility to use the trade policy as a "hedge" option so you can move up/down in color or size without spending dollars as your tastes & preferences change. That flexibility is pretty incredible.

I especially love your last statement. I used to frequently say that super ideals are an easy button solution. Those vendors make it transparent what you are buying and remove risk & hesitation from the hesitation. Additionally you get kick ass performance. It's been my experience that lowest dollar rarely equates to best value.

I could not agree more. I would like to add (and it is my observation of someone who has a sight of an eagle and scrutinize her diamonds like no one) - that super-ideal cuts (might it be HPD, VC, ACA) hide color easier. I used to own 1.92 G XXX (GIA) and when compared to my 2.13 H HPD (bigger and a color grade down - so one would assume you could see the tint even more), it turned out my HPD actually looked whiter. So I took the 1.92 to David Klass, and he guessed the color to be an I because of the cut.

Personally, I want hassle-free purchase where I know I am getting the best. Non-branded XXX does not cut it for me. It is too much money to settle.

From the face up position, super ideals can look much whiter because they are so precisely cut that they have optimal light return that extends edge to edge.

Additionally a super ideal can look larger than a poorly cut stone.

Cut quality isn't always jus about fire. Below is a video that Garry did highlighting how to use the idealscope. More importantly, it shows how a well cut stone can perform very differently and look bigger than a poorly cut stone.

You are giving misinformation as though it is a fact. If you had said, "I personally prefer stones whiter than H", and "I personally can't tell the difference between XXX and super ideals", we wouldn't care. But the argument that others can't is provably false, and deserved to be called out for the nonsense it is.

Bingo. Double standard.

 

[whitewave]

All I can say is thank goodness we have an ignore button.

 

[sledge]

"Good enough" diamonds are fine for many people. Especially those not aware that something better exists, or that it can make a demonstrable difference to the light performance. The diamond industry as a whole has been driven by yield from the beginning, and the quest for optimal beauty has traditionally been de-prioritized. That has begun to change with the revolution in instrumentation and information technology that makes precision cutting more feasible, and more widely known to the public. But the momentum in the market for good enough diamonds is still strong. Those in the trade dedicated to a philosophy of beauty over weight are still a decided minority.

With most sellers offering primarily a selection of good enough diamonds and representing them as being the best value, the general public is largely unaware of the full range available to them. Changing the status quo is a slow process, but it is happening. Cutting got a lot better when GIA finally released their overall cut grade. But the Excellent category is broad enough to allow for incremental qualities that are even better within that range. Ideals and super ideals are both possible AND valued by consumers who have seen and understand them.

Bryan, long time no talk buddy. Hope all is good.

Here's to hoping the mentality of "good enough" changes sooner, rather than later.

 

[whitewave]

Bryan, long time no talk buddy. Hope all is good.

Here's to hoping the mentality of "good enough" changes sooner, rather than later.

my husband (a surgical specialist) loves this commercial... like it really cracks him up every time he sees it. It never gets old.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Anyone can do whatever he/she wants since it's his/her money in the end.

This is my last post in this thread...

 

[sledge]

I have that question into DK and am awaiting his response. I do assume there is some limit so will need to know before I purchase any stone bigger that the current stone but I also expect there is at least a little bit of wiggle room for sizing up.

Do you have any pictures of the setting you can share? If by chance it's a "peg head" style it may be as simple as paying for a new & larger peg head.

Also @sledge here is a pic of the cert for my current diamond.

Thank you for sharing.

As I am sure others have noticed, this cert does not have the crown & pavilion angles disclosed so I am using the following math to determine the angles:

Crown Angle = 37.12 degrees
CA = tan-1(crown height/((1-(table diameter/100))*50)) using traditional calculator
CA = degrees(atan(crown height/((1-(table diameter/100))*50))) using Excel

Pavilion Angle = 41.35 degrees
PA = tan-1(pavilion depth/50) using traditional calculator
PA = degrees(atan(pavilion depth/50)) using Excel

So the proportions look like this: 63t, 61.7d & 37.12c/41.35p

When you factor in rounding & averaging of the actual values, the crown & pavilion angles might be slightly different but that will be very close.

As you will notice, the cut on the existing stone is ranked "good" by both AGS and GIA proportions charts. This isn't a surprise as EGL also graded as good.

However, it does help us tell you what a drastic difference you will see going from this stone to an ACA. I think your stone will look whiter and bigger, as the new stone will have maximum light performance that extends edge to edge. Also, the fire on the ACA is going to take your breath away!





GIA Proportions Table:

 

[adlgel]

Yes current setting has a peg head but DK is replacing with something more along the lines of Tiffany type prongs.

 

[whitewave]

I’m anxious awaiting DK’s reply about a larger stone, @adlgel

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes current setting has a peg head but DK is replacing with something more along the lines of Tiffany type prongs.

I am late in catching up, but I would advise you to call DK immediately and tell them to stop work on your new head because you may upgrade the diamond. It’s not going to be a big deal or expense to make a larger head. Get the diamond you really want. Don’t limit yourself to the size of the old ring.

 

[adlgel]

@diamondseeker2006 I have already alerted DK to the fact that I may upgrade the new diamond. I am waiting for a response from him as to how big I can go on the existing ring with a new head. I assume any of my options are doable - biggest diamond I'm considering is 7.53-7.57 whereas current diamond is 7.04-7.09 so max of about a .5 mm increase. I'm hopeful that the current setting can accommodate a new head of that size (and perhaps even smaller if I go with one of my other options). But regardless, will wait for DK to confirm before I make a purchase.

 

[sledge]

@diamondseeker2006 I have already alerted DK to the fact that I may upgrade the new diamond. I am waiting for a response from him as to how big I can go on the existing ring with a new head. I assume any of my options are doable - biggest diamond I'm considering is 7.53-7.57 whereas current diamond is 7.04-7.09 so max of about a .5 mm increase. I'm hopeful that the current setting can accommodate a new head of that size (and perhaps even smaller if I go with one of my other options). But regardless, will wait for DK to confirm before I make a purchase.

I would reach out to WF and ask them to place a temp hold on the stones you are interested in while you await DK's response. If you need a cell phone let me know and I can hook you up with Amy.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

@diamondseeker2006 I have already alerted DK to the fact that I may upgrade the new diamond. I am waiting for a response from him as to how big I can go on the existing ring with a new head. I assume any of my options are doable - biggest diamond I'm considering is 7.53-7.57 whereas current diamond is 7.04-7.09 so max of about a .5 mm increase. I'm hopeful that the current setting can accommodate a new head of that size (and perhaps even smaller if I go with one of my other options). But regardless, will wait for DK to confirm before I make a purchase.

Yes, they could put a 3 ct stone in the existing ring. They'd just make the opening for the new head larger. The same size head won't work for 7.04 and 7.5, though, so they'd just need to get or make a larger head.

As @sledge just said, by all means put that stone on hold if you haven't already. I already said this to someone, so my apologies if I am repeating something I already said! All you do is put it in your cart online, check out and put wire payment (so you don't have to give CC info), and you can write a note in a space that says you are putting it on hold because you are considering buying it and will call tomorrow. It automatically will put it on reserve for something like 48 hours.

What I'd do is have DK finish the setting with the correct size head and then send it to WF to actually set the diamond. That is less complicated (and less expensive) than sending the diamond to DK to set.