Performance Images Comparison (ACA vs ES)

[the_mother_thing]

Another ‘exercise’ I thought I’d share while comparing/contrasting potential upgrade diamonds.

The candidate: a Whiteflash ACA.

Given WF provides such consistent performance images, I thought I’d have a little “now you see it, now you don’t” fun comparing the candidate diamond’s images to my current Expert Selection diamond’s images ‘live’ (see video) vs just static/‘side-by-side’ (further below).

ACA images across the top (specs on left) & ES across the bottom (specs on right).


I will be bringing it in/home for an in-person assessment before deciding, but curious to read PSers’ observations based on what you see.

 

[sledge]

Interesting. I'm mobile and will make some additional comments later but my initial thoughts are maybe your new stone will be slightly more lively.

The smaller table and near matching proportions changed your crown height to over 15. The other wasn't a slouch at 14.8 but it's a 0.5% increase.

On the LGFs I noticed there is a slight variance as well. It's not a noticeable on the face up views as in the heart views. Also you have a 77 spread across a 55 table vs a 76 across a near 57 table. I commented on another thread with some VC stones recently where varying table and LGFs were playing optical illusions. Essentially (numerically) larger LGF looked skinnier than smaller LGF because of table variances.

By chance, can you post or create a video showing the WF videos in a side by side view. I realize they are zoomed, under fire lighting, etc but may be as comparable as you get. I've done this in the past when helping others and sometimes you can see small variances. I use Chrome and pop open 2 tabs to get side by side. There is another app that will let you record your onscreen content, I think is called Zoom. It's a Chrome extension. The tricky part is getting the videos spinning on the same rotation points.

 

[the_mother_thing]

@sledge Good morning! Thanks for chiming in with your thoughts. I noted the ‘numbers differences’, such as the LGFs and increase in crown height, and mainly hoping folks who’ve seen such differences in person might opine on those exact items. By chance, have you seen (in person) a comparison of such diamonds and their visually discernible differences; and if so, what did you see/think? On the LGFs, unless ALL things are exactly equal, I’m not sure I’ll really be able to differentiate the 77 & 76 LGFs, given the differences in other angles and impacts those have on the overall picture, but we’ll see soon. My prior thoughts on that are what led me down this recent rabbit hole.

I’m dealing with the same WF person who I worked with to buy my ES last year. This go-around, she was able to pull several other diamonds with close specs to both my ES and the candidate diamond for review, and provided very favorable/positive feedback on my questions/concerns. And, one amazingly, graciously kind PSer already put their eyes on it as well (compared to a couple others there), and advised that it’s gorgeous. In the end though, I know that seeing it with my eyes in my environment will be the crucial, deciding factor. Nevertheless, it’s always fun to read what others think/see leading up to the ‘big reveal’.

I, too, experience the same issue with trying to get two WF videos to ‘spin’ at the same time when I have them open on split-screen. I primarily use an iPad Pro for 99% of my browsing, and love it 99% of the time. I thought that issue was just an iPad anomaly, but after trying the same on my laptop, it was also a no-go there ... as is when I have them in a ‘WF compare’ view (with all the specs listed down the page to see side-by-side), and try to make those smaller videos spin, same thing ... one might spin a little, then the other might spin a little, but never both spinning at the same time. At the end of the day, it’s first world problem, and I can deal.

 

[Wewechew]

I love the proportions of the new diamond- small table, higher crown, etc.

I didn't look at the specs before viewing the video because I didn't want to be biased, but I *thought* I detected thinner arrows; wasn't positive until I confirmed with the next picture you posted.

I can't wait to hear what you think of it in person next to your stone. I have a feeling there may be more arrow contrast because of the new table and crown height.

 

[mwilliamanderson]

I can’t believe how little difference I saw other than the painting at the girdle (I think that’s what those teeth marks are?) and inclusion differences. I’ll be interested to hear what your opinion is when you have them together. I’m guessing it’s just the girdle that put your diamond it in the ES category?

 

[TODiamonds]

What's the difference in size between these 2 stones?

 

[the_mother_thing]

@Wewechew Funny you of all people would mention those arrows! I initially thought the same thing when I looked at it like that (the video flipping back/forth between the actual diamond pictures), but as I did it more and more, I realized that - SOLELY looking at/based on the images - the difference my eye was actually seeing was the decreased table size and thus seeing less arrows. So, considering the magnification of those images compared to what I’ll see IRL, I’m anticipating that any difference will be minimal if at all detectable specific to the arrows themselves, given the table differences. We’ll see, and I’ll be sure to circle back on that once I have it in hand to observe.

@mwilliamanderson I always get painting & digging confused, but yes; there is some at the 8:00 position on my ES; that said, it’s not anything I’ve ever been able to visually detect/discern when viewing my diamond unaided. I believe that ‘factor’ - coupled with the medium blue fluorescence - is what knocked it out of the ACA branding, if I recall correctly from my discussion with WF on it last year.

@TODiamonds That’s the other factor that makes this upgrade candidate comparison a bit different from the last one I considered - the overall size of the diamond. This one is - IMO - a more noticeable & considerable size jump from my ES which is 1.413ct, as the ACA I’m considering here is 2.107ct.

The measurements for each are:

• Current/ES - 7.15x7.20x4.44 mm
• Candidate/ACA - 8.24x8.26x5.09 mm
• Net difference: .69 ct weight increase & >1.1mm in overall spread

I know that that - too - will impact the in-person assessment/comparison in the appearance of the arrows, performance, etc. and am keeping that factor in mind for when I do have it in hand.

 

[TODiamonds]

With a size jump THAT large, I think it is a waste of your time to even compare these immaterial differences in spec.

I'll save you some time... When you see them you'll choose the bigger one

 

[the_mother_thing]

With a size jump THAT large, I think it is a waste of your time to even compare these immaterial differences in spec.

I'll save you some time... When you see them you'll choose the bigger one

That may be true for some people, but for me, if it was merely a matter of ‘size’, I’d have simply gone with the last one that I recently considered. It, too, was a gorgeous diamond, a good size jump from my current diamond, and it was less (net) out of pocket than the one I’m now considering. Just sayin’ ...

 

[TODiamonds]

That may be true for some people, but for me, if it was merely a matter of ‘size’, I’d have simply gone with the last one that I recently considered. It, too, was a gorgeous diamond, a good size jump from my current diamond, and it was less (net) out of pocket than the one I’m now considering. Just sayin’ ...

Let's be real here... you're going from ES to ACA and you're getting a massive jump in size and spread.

Which one do you think you're going to gravitate to when you see them in person. If you're at this piont then you've probably already gotten over the cost which is the biggest hurdle. The battle is already over

 

[the_mother_thing]

One more ‘comparison’ point between my current ES and the ACA candidate - the cut appears to be ‘tighter’ with the ACA (which is not surprising to me) per the Sarin reports.

ES:


ACA:

 

[Wewechew]

Let's be real here... you're going from ES to ACA and you're getting a massive jump in size and spread.

Which one do you think you're going to gravitate to when you see them in person. If you're at this piont then you've probably already gotten over the cost which is the biggest hurdle. The battle is already over

There are some of us that are able to tell small differences in angles and prefer one over the other. When you live with somethings 24/7, and are spending this kind of money, why would we not want to make sure we are getting the perfect diamond for us?

 

[the_mother_thing]

Let's be real here... you're going from ES to ACA and you're getting a massive jump in size and spread.

Which one do you think you're going to gravitate to when you see them in person. If you're at this piont then you've probably already gotten over the cost which is the biggest hurdle. The battle is already over

Okay, I’ll play along ...

I’m pretty sure I said in the first sentence of my initial post above that I’m planning an UPGRADE ... so it kind of stands to reason that one reasonably expects something about an UPGRADE to be ‘bigger/better/different’ somehow aside from the numbers behind the dollar sign (lest you enjoy tossing money out the window for gits & shiggles; I certainly don’t). I’m also not following why/how you seem to think I’m somehow being less than ‘real’ about this UPGRADE when I also shared the branding, specs, etc. of the diamonds being considered. Don’t worry your pretty head, I’m well aware the diamond I’m considering is bigger than the one I currently have.

Secondly, of course cost is a factor, but neither it - nor size - is the only/deciding factor for me. I knew, accepted and paid the full price of the last option I considered before I saw it in person. That diamond, too, was bigger than my current diamond; yet, I returned it (and FTR, it was no ‘slouch’.) So no, the battle is not ‘already over’ as you put it; and this decision - for me - is not as uninformed & trivial as “Ohhh, bigger ... SOLD”, as your comment rather insultingly suggests.

Lastly, since you appear familiar with the differences between ES & ACA branded diamonds, you’re likely also aware that this forum is largely comprised of educated diamond enthusiasts and very highly-respected trade members who largely strive to purchase and offer (respectively) the highest levels of excellence in diamond cut & performance. Consequently, your comments (intended or not) appear somewhat arrogant and condescending. Maybe that’s not your intention, but to squash your assertion that my thread is somehow a mind-game to justify my choice to buy a larger diamond, rest assured that I’m not seeking permission, justification nor ‘support’ for what is & will be my decision; rather, I’m sincerely interested in the educated opinions of my fellow enthusiasts who appreciate and enjoy discussing the nuances of cut. At the same time, my hope is that by sharing my journey, others who may stumble upon PS in their quest for an outstanding performing diamond can also learn about those nuances vs. falling prey to the BS hurled by the “Kays” & “Jareds” who rely on those same people to go “Ohhh, bigger ... SOLD!”

Now that we have your concerns out of the way, care to share what your experienced observations are with regard to the impact a smaller table may have on the visually-perceptible difference of 76 vs 77 LGFs ... ya know, for someone who didn’t just mosey on by and was simply distracted by the sparkle?

 

[TODiamonds]

I apologize if I came across as arrogant, my comment was more tongue in cheek.

I just don't understand the purpose of comparing a 1.4 ES against a 2.1 ACA. It's like comparing a Honda Civic to a Ferrari. The latter will win hands down - it's almost 40% larger and is superior cut.

If you've already established a budget for an upgrade, wouldn't it make more sense to compare the 2.1 ACA against other alternatives within that budget? Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the thread, I will politely eject now

 

[Wewechew]

I just don't understand the purpose of comparing a 1.4 ES against a 2.1 ACA. It's like comparing a Honda Civic to a Ferrari. The latter will win hands down - it's almost 40% larger and is superior cut.

An ES is definitely not a Honda Civic lol. The only reason her stone is an ES is because of one area near the girdle and the medium fluorescence.

 

[mwilliamanderson]

I also think for a diamond to meet ACA requirements the girdle can be thin to medium or it can be med to slightly thick, but it can’t be thin to slightly thick. It seems like a small thing but I bet it can impact the overall symmetry and you may be able to notice that difference IRL.

 

[Dancing Fire]

• Net difference: .69 ct weight increase & >1.1mm in overall spread

I'll take the 1.1mm increase in size....

 

[Wewechew]

I'll take the 1.1mm increase in size....

Over your preferred proportions?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Over your preferred proportions?

Doesn't the bigger stone have the smaller table on a taller crown?.

 

[Wewechew]

Doesn't the bigger stone have the smaller table on a taller crown?.

Ahhhh... I forgot you weren’t a LGF snob too. Yes, now I understand why you are all for it

 

[the_mother_thing]

I just don't understand the purpose of comparing a 1.4 ES against a 2.1 ACA. It's like comparing a Honda Civic to a Ferrari. The latter will win hands down - it's almost 40% larger and is superior cut.

If you've already established a budget for an upgrade, wouldn't it make more sense to compare the 2.1 ACA against other alternatives within that budget? Anyway, I didn't mean to derail the thread, I will politely eject now

Really?

See, the way apologies work is: first you acknowledge that you said/did something ‘wrong’ or ‘offensive’; then you reflect on that behavior and try not to repeat it in the future. Consequently, I deleted your apology from the above quote ... because the ignorance you followed it up with demonstrates little effort you actually ‘tried’, rendering it meaningless and only reinforcing my initial observations and thoughts related to your participation in this thread.

Maybe you’d like to try again? Better yet, instead of concerning yourself with what diamonds I choose to compare and why, perhaps first you can answer the question I posed to you in my prior post. Surely someone who feels he/she is sooooo experienced and knowledgeable about the WF line of diamonds to make the above ‘comparison’ would be eager to demonstrate their knowledge & expertise over their abundant ignorance.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I also think for a diamond to meet ACA requirements the girdle can be thin to medium or it can be med to slightly thick, but it can’t be thin to slightly thick. It seems like a small thing but I bet it can impact the overall symmetry and you may be able to notice that difference IRL.

I honestly cannot remember with 100% certainty; I just recall - when I asked last year - the MBF was the main item that excluded it from ACA branding. Whiteflash has the criteria for their ACA branded diamonds on their website, but the way girdle criteria are noted makes it open to interpretation or confusion, I suppose. I don’t want to assume or potentially post ‘permanent bad’ information, so I’m tagging @Texas Leaguer who is more appropriate to opine on the ACA criteria related to the girdle.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Ahhhh... I forgot you weren’t a LGF snob too. Yes, now I understand why you are all for it

I'm fine with 76-77 LGF. My stone is 76, but my wife's stone is 80% LGF.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I'll take the 1.1mm increase in size....

Shocker!

Doesn't the bigger stone have the smaller table on a taller crown?.

Yes, the ACA has the T: 55.4 & C: 34.6/15.3, whereas my ES has the T: 56.8 & C: 34.4/14.8. And the ACA is the larger of the two diamonds.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I'm fine with 76-77 LGF. My stone is 76, but my wife's stone is 80% LGF.

I forget - isn’t your Wife’s diamond GIA (and thus may have rounded LGFs)? Or did you get a Sarin/other scan as well advising it was 80 ‘right on the nose’?

The center diamond in my 3-stone ring also has 80 LGF (per the GIA report), but I don’t notice it as much and/or it may be ‘heavily’ rounded. Could be because it’s smaller (only .70ct) ... or because - at the moment - that sucker is DIRRRRRTAYYYYYY!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I honestly cannot remember with 100% certainty; I just recall - when I asked last year - the MBF was the main item that excluded it from ACA branding. Whiteflash has the criteria for their ACA branded diamonds on their website, but the way girdle criteria are noted makes it open to interpretation or confusion, I suppose. I don’t want to assume or potentially post ‘permanent bad’ information, so I’m tagging @Texas Leaguer who is more appropriate to opine on the ACA criteria related to the girdle.

It's a fair question. With regard to girdle thickness, that is taken into account in the AGSL cut grading system. If it gets a triple ideal, the girdle is not too thin to be a durability issue, nor is it too thick and hiding weight. As @mwilliamanderson speculated, big variations could indicate some symmetry issues that could result in light performance deficits, but again, it went through the ray tracer without getting a grade lowering deduction.

We allow only negligible fluorescence in A CUT ABOVE, but up to medium in Expert Selection. Also the variations in the upper girdle facet angle/azimuth (resulting in the green on perimeter) are slightly over the line for ACA.

 

[sledge]

Have you asked WF for a detailed SARIN report on both stones, yet? At the level of evaluation you have committed to I believe it is warranted and may add some personal value.

In regards to your ES missing the ACA criteria, you can see proportion-wise it met the criteria:

https://www.whiteflash.com/a-cut-above-diamonds-specifications-and-qualifications/

I saw where Bryan downgraded an ACA to an ES about a year or so back with a similar type girdle imperfection that your ES has around the 8 o'clock position. Also, I remember reading an article, or possibly seeing a post here where WF only allowed negligible levels of fluor in their ACA line. This doesn't directly say that, but is a good read nonetheless.

https://www.whiteflash.com/about-di...ion/diamond-fluorescence-good-or-bad-1322.htm

Based on the other information I've seen, I would think those are the reasons it missed ACA.

FWIW, when I was shopping for my wife, I heavily considered a PS stone. It was compared against ACA's and preferred over some of them. At the time, I wasn't as aware of details as I am now and was not to the level of precision comparison so that likely accounted for some of the difference in "personality".

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3945630.htm

 

[mwilliamanderson]

It's a fair question. With regard to girdle thickness, that is taken into account in the AGSL cut grading system. If it gets a triple ideal, the girdle is not too thin to be a durability issue, nor is it too thick and hiding weight. As @mwilliamanderson speculated, big variations could indicate some symmetry issues that could result in light performance deficits, but again, it went through the ray tracer without getting a grade lowering deduction.

We allow only negligible fluorescence in A CUT ABOVE, but up to medium in Expert Selection. Also the variations in the upper girdle facet angle/azimuth (resulting in the green on perimeter) are slightly over the line for ACA.

Thanks for clarifying those points for us @Texas Leaguer!

 

[Dancing Fire]

I forget - isn’t your Wife’s diamond GIA (and thus may have rounded LGFs)? Or did you get a Sarin/other scan as well advising it was 80 ‘right on the nose’?

Her stone was graded in 2003 so there are no specs on the GIA report. I got a Sarin report from Jon, and by looking at the skinny arrows I can tell it is 80% LGF. The stone is so tightly cut, look at these deviations b/t the min and the max.

 

[the_mother_thing]

It's a fair question. With regard to girdle thickness, that is taken into account in the AGSL cut grading system. If it gets a triple ideal, the girdle is not too thin to be a durability issue, nor is it too thick and hiding weight. As @mwilliamanderson speculated, big variations could indicate some symmetry issues that could result in light performance deficits, but again, it went through the ray tracer without getting a grade lowering deduction.

We allow only negligible fluorescence in A CUT ABOVE, but up to medium in Expert Selection. Also the variations in the upper girdle facet angle/azimuth (resulting in the green on perimeter) are slightly over the line for ACA.

Thank you for clarifying, Bryan! What you stated is consistent with my recollection from last year’s conversation with my wonderful WF consultant.

I don’t necessarily consider myself one to have ‘eagle eyes’ to discern some of the nuances others might. But what I do know is if I could find my exact diamond in a larger size (especially the MBF) - I’d happily snatch it up in a heartbeat! There is not a single thing about it’s performance that makes my eyes unhappy when I see it. In fact, the idea of ‘upgrading’ is really bittersweet, which is why - for me - it’s not just ‘all about the size’. My ‘Honda’ is a fantastic, reliable performer that has been an absolute pleasure to ‘drive’!