Cost of Superbcert vs. ACA?

[bookworm21]

Hi all, forgive me if something has already been posted, but I searched older threads and could not find anything relevant to the different in the price of these two brands.

I had originally really liked the ACA from WF, until I happened to look at the Superbcert stones. The price difference for the same size stone, clarity and color is roughly $4000! Is there a reason why there''s such a big difference between the two brands? Is one stricter than the other when it comes to selecting stones? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I doubt that such a big difference would exist.
But Service levels could account for some of that?

 

[bookworm21]

Hi Gary, the basic specs for the stones I am looking at are this:

About 1.5 carats, F color, VS1 or 2. WF has them for roughly $18K and Superbcert for $14-15K.

Are you suggesting that perhaps WF has better service or better trade up policy? Just want to know so that I will be getting the most for the money.

Thanks!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/14/2005 4:55:14 AM
Author:Cinderella

Is one stricter than the other when it comes to selecting stones?

It really comes up to you to select a diamond between the two. Superbcert does not post here anymore... so the prices do not get compared side by side as often. This might make some difference too.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I saw a F VS1 $15714 (cheaper than a VS2).
Also you were looking at drop ship stones I think.
Superbcert - Round 1.66 Carat F VS1 diamond
ONLY $20,450.00

 

[valeria101]

Wait a minute... Superbcert is the (somewhat) more expensive.

Are we talking about the same list of diamonds: THIS ONE

Since ACA are H&A, I thought you were comparing them with the ''Superb Cert'' line which are H&A as well.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Just had a look at a few of the Imagescope images (like ideal-scope).
Amazing how similar many of them look.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/14/2005 6:15:16 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Just had a look at a few of the Imagescope images (like ideal-scope).
Amazing how similar many of them look.

Oups

The ''normal'' pictures look diverse enough, but ... what do I know.

 

[Regular Guy]

Impressive that a comparison of quality has not yet been suggested.

I see from their site than a majority are called "specials," and perhaps are even marked down for the time of year.

Date: 12/14/2005 5:19:41 AM
Author: valeria101

Superbcert does not post here anymore... so the prices do not get compared side by side as often. This might make some difference too.

Also, even for the database that they do partake in, these "specials" do not get included. The one e-mail conversation I had with...I think it was Barry...was not pleasant. Then again, the purpose of the conversation was to ask him why he didn''t participate in the "search by cut" option here on Pricescope. But, I am told he has a style, from reading posts here, if you get that close to him, that sets 50% of those people off. So...maybe he just doesn''t have a thick enough front line separating him from the crowds. In previous review there, it did seem to me their IS images were the same. If true, although this may not be different than the WF practice of showing a representative H&A image, their practice is made public.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/14/2005 10:09:51 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Impressive that a comparison of quality has not yet been suggested.

Between the two breeds of H&A?

It would take a bit to comb for any differences of style, but quality would be allot said, once the proportions and optical symmetry are in place. Hence, no comment.

There are always 'specials' and 'featured' listings at Excel Diamonds, that are not H&A (for the rounds) and given that the respective quality is what usually carries a premium, I did not go on to compare those to the ACA. Perhaps some comparison with WF's 'Expert Selection' would be more level.

Of this, the issue whether and how much optical symmetry counts was left out.

What else ? (not a rhetoric question)

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/14/2005 10:09:51 AM
Author: Regular Guy

In previous review there, it did seem to me their IS images were the same. If true, although this may not be different than the WF practice of showing a representative H&A image, their practice is made public.

Does ''their practice is made public'' mean that all stock images are labeled as such? Or something else?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 12/14/2005 10:09:51 AM
Author: Regular Guy

In previous review there, it did seem to me their IS images were the same. If true, although this may not be different than the WF practice of showing a representative H&A image, their practice is made public.

I dunno, Ira.....I see these as being different animals....not apples to apples.

Every idealscope image should be unique, as is every diamond. Nearly no two look precisely and exactly alike. An idealscope represents THAT individual diamond.

The H&A pattern is a bit different because it's measure against a standard. If the cleft is greater than x%, it gets rejected. If there isn't a clear separation between hearts and arrowheads, it's rejected. If one heart is slightly smaller, it gets rejected.

In short....ACA is an elite subset, and any diamond having a pattern that doesn't precisely match the standard doesn't make the grade. They may still be beautiful diamonds, but they don't earn the ACA brand.

However, you cannot "reject" an idealscope for a given diamond....it is what it is.

In the case above, it would appear that the same idealscope image is being used to represent two different stones, and seeing that there isn't a "consistency of the pattern" barometer to apply, it would seem quite misleading.

 

[elmo]

Would majority of SCs get AGS0 these days? Seemed for a while there that a number of stones were getting slightly deep for that. I haven''t looked lately though.

 

[rfath]

Huh.. wonder when that happened.. I know that the IS image for my diamond does look a bit different... or maybe I''m just seeing things.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/14/2005 11:08:50 AM
Author: rfath
Huh.. wonder when that happened.. I know that the IS image for my diamond does look a bit different... or maybe I''m just seeing things.

No you are not... or at least we are seeing the same. After Garry''s post I looked over the site picking Si and I1 diamonds and the inclusions are there is the IS. If they do use stock photos, it may not be for everything.

The pair that Garry found really do look alike though - even if those diamonds are the most standardized in the world...

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 12/14/2005 10:30:10 AM
Author: valeria101


There are always ''specials'' and ''featured'' listings at Excel Diamonds, that are not H&A (for the rounds) and given that the respective quality is what usually carries a premium, I did not go on to compare those to the ACA. Perhaps some comparison with WF''s ''Expert Selection'' would be more level.

Good thing I don''t get paid for this stuff.

OK, although clicking on the left only on "superbcert" at their cite, and presuming these were their H&As comparable to WF ACAs, a second look proves something different, and so, sorry, I don''t look there hardly ever. Does this sound right. For rounds, at least, if marked "ideal," it''s out of house, and probably the same database as GOG''s out of house options. If special, perhaps this will more readily map onto their expert selection at WF. Then, without "special," if "round," it will have the confirming text at lower left, describing it as H&A.

Without close scrutiny, I''m guessing these are more comparable, WF & Superbcert, than not.

On the other points above...

"Does ''their practice is made public'' mean that all stock images are labeled as such? Or something else?"

Not sure, not studied...I just happen to live here lately, read clearly on these boards that WF will show for their ACAs stock images of H&A patterns, and I understand this to be an educated position, not themselves seeing difference enough, one to another, to find it provided value added to customers to show this as documentation. And Al, if you say IS images are different enough....maybe. Also, I''m not sure Supberbcert doesn''t show them differentiated for their diamonds. I did, however, note what Garry did in previous review...that a lot looked the same. I''ve not looked at this carefully enough to think I''ve added anything here, sorry.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/14/2005 11:08:02 AM
Author: elmo

Would majority of SCs get AGS0 these days?

I would be curious about the princess cuts - the AGSo look more appealing (and probably 'better' because of less darkness, edge-to-edge brilliance and more traditional square-table look), but both species look like serious improvement over the 'average' and there are so few AGS0 princess cuts. I was expecting the SC princesses to convert to AGS0 when it came out, but no...

If SC does not believe in AGS grades, the point is moot.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/14/2005 11:14:02 AM
Author: Regular Guy



OK, although clicking on the left only on ''superbcert'' at their site, and presuming these were their H&As comparable to WF ACAs,

I had even forgotten about GOG''s H&A search... and yay! what confusion of search engines

Maybe someone should get paid to sort these out after all

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 12/14/2005 11:42:37 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 12/14/2005 11:14:02 AM
Author: Regular Guy



OK, although clicking on the left only on ''superbcert'' at their site, and presuming these were their H&As comparable to WF ACAs,

I had even forgotten about GOG''s H&A search... and yay! what confusion of search engines

Maybe someone should get paid to sort these out after all

Valeria, in this particular case, not sure how well they''re paid

but I think the Pricescope search by cut database will do this one for you, with G0G''s options being identified there as in house or not.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/14/2005 11:53:23 AM
Author: Regular Guy
Valeria, in this particular case, not sure how well they''re paid

but I think the Pricescope search by cut database will do this one for you, with G0G''s options being identified there as in house or not.

True

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 12/14/2005 11:14:02 AM
Author: Regular Guy

And Al, if you say IS images are different enough....maybe. Also, I''m not sure Supberbcert doesn''t show them differentiated for their diamonds. I did, however, note what Garry did in previous review...that a lot looked the same.

IS images should look as individual as the diamonds......in the nuances.

In the case of the two stones Garry posted, it looks SO dramatically similar as to give the impression of being the same. I''d venture that you could do an overlay and not see any difference.

I wouldn''t leap to the conclusion that SC uses the same images for all their stones based on that one example....but that one example would concern me enough to watch a heck of a lot more closely and be sure I''m getting IS images of the actual stone in question if I were the one contemplating a purchase with them.

 

[Rhapsody]

I have a superbcert princess and I emailed Barry to ask if he had sent any of the stones off to see what they''d score on the AGS scale or if the intended to change their cutting parameters and he said they had no plans to change their cut design and hadn''t sent anything to AGS. It sounded like he didn''t put much stock in the AGS ideal designation, for what ever reason. I know for me the choice was 98 percent supply. I certainly would have looked at the AGS0 princesses had their been one in my desired size range at the time.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 12/14/2005 12:03:46 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 12/14/2005 11:14:02 AM
Author: Regular Guy

And Al, if you say IS images are different enough....maybe. Also, I''m not sure Supberbcert doesn''t show them differentiated for their diamonds. I did, however, note what Garry did in previous review...that a lot looked the same.

IS images should look as individual as the diamonds......in the nuances.

In the case of the two stones Garry posted, it looks SO dramatically similar as to give the impression of being the same. I''d venture that you could do an overlay and not see any difference.

I wouldn''t leap to the conclusion that SC uses the same images for all their stones based on that one example....but that one example would concern me enough to watch a heck of a lot more closely and be sure I''m getting IS images of the actual stone in question if I were the one contemplating a purchase with them.

I adjusted contrast +30 on the one on left.

 

[Mara]

Also SC just like WF sells non branded stones...so possibly the price difference is for an ACA vs a virtual SC rather than a branded SC. That could account for the $4k difference. In the past when comparing prices, SC and ACA''s were very competitive in pricing, maybe SC a little lower but not by $4k!

The SC stones we have seen posted on here are always very lovely, just like the ACA stones. Personally I don''t think you could go wrong with either brand.

 

[belle]

it''s not just the contrast...all of the footprints are the same.
that just doesn''t happen in idealscope images.

 

[bookworm21]

Thanks for all the input everyone; from everything I''ve been hearing and what I''ve read, I would probably go with ACA. I did go to the Excelsomething.com website (Valeria provided that link) and that''s where I found the SuperbCert stones with the much lower price differences.

Upon closer look at the GIA info provided on the SC stones, I realized the differences were in the symmetry and polish. Several of the stones offered by SC were in the VG/VG or EX/VG range vs. the ID/ID range for all the ACA stones.

Thanks all, and I''m going for the mind clean stones!

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 12/14/2005 2:34:00 PM
Author: belle
it''s not just the contrast...all of the footprints are the same.
that just doesn''t happen in idealscope images.

Precisely....that''s what I was trying to say.

I tend to think of IS images as fingerprints.....all have their own unique characters. To see two that have exactly all of the same "footprints" or markers would be MOST unusual.....if even possible at all.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 12/14/2005 3:00:28 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 12/14/2005 2:34:00 PM
Author: belle
it's not just the contrast...all of the footprints are the same.
that just doesn't happen in idealscope images.

Precisely....that's what I was trying to say.

I tend to think of IS images as fingerprints.....all have their own unique characters. To see two that have exactly all of the same 'footprints' or markers would be MOST unusual.....if even possible at all.

No doubt they are the same stone.
The bigger issue for me is that the images seem to have been adjusted so they deliberately look differnt.
I have seen other examples of the same stone taken with different focus positions.
I do not like it.

 

[RockDoc]

I might be wrong here, but I think Barry is using his own "Ideal Scope" version. Note that the display of the image say
IMAGESCOPE.

Could be the angle reflevtive images are based on slightly different position of the pink thingie. This would account for visual differences.

Rockdoc

 

[belle]

Date: 12/14/2005 3:20:21 PM
Author: RockDoc


I might be wrong here, but I think Barry is using his own 'Ideal Scope' version. Note that the display of the image say
IMAGESCOPE.

Could be the angle reflevtive images are based on slightly different position of the pink thingie. This would account for visual differences.

Rockdoc

oh yes imagescope...that must be the difference. are they made by sly-dexter mcmonkey mcbean? the fix-it-up chappie likes to hit up the sneetches. there nothing more perfect than the quick star dream machine for putting stars upon thars.