shape
carat
color
clarity

AGS Ideal Cut & Light Perf. RB vs Hearts & Arrows RB

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Gypsy|1412124715|3759531 said:
Okay so...

Let me explain the point of the link I posted earlier. As I think it was missed.

YES you can tell the difference between a BGD Signature or an Infinity and a GIA EX/EX with a fanastic ASET/IS combo or a 'regular' AGS0 without the precision faceting when you see them side by side, and definitely once your eyes are trained. And even if they are untrained some times and not next to a less precisely cut stone.

It's like saying... will I be able to see the difference between a D and a G. Well, YES. Your eyes work, presumably. I am not color sensitive (I don't generally let color bother me and appreciate each color for what it is), but of course I can SEE color difference, quite well actually.

And even a novice can spot the difference between a D and a G when they are side by side, like in the tray example Wink gave. Just like most people can see the difference between a GIA Ex with a great idealscope image and a perfect Infinity when side by side. Why? Because there IS a difference.

That's not the issue for me.

The "Super Ideal" issue is just like color to me. YES, I can see the difference between a D and a G. But... does it have to bother me? No. I can appreciate the G for what it is. And I don't NEED to buy a D. Even though there IS a difference.

Not everyone can afford a D. In fact MOST of the time on PS we don't push colorless at all, let ALONE D. Why? Because buying a diamond is about BALANCING the 4 C's.

Not everyone can afford a D IF Super ideal in the PERFECT size. So the question then becomes: what CAN you compromise on without compromising TOO MUCH.

That's where that thread I posted comes in. YES, super ideals are fabulous. D's are fabulous too. Do you NEED a super ideal to get a fantastic looking stone? NO. You DO NOT. Same as you do not need a D to get a fantastic looking stone.

You wear diamonds on the hand ALONE or with stones of similar cut quality and color.

You don't wear them in a tray next to a Super Ideal. Just like you don't wear an H next to a D. Why? Because there is a difference, of course. Now, does that mean the H is not a gorgeous color? NO. Does that mean the GIA Ex with a great idealscope is not a beautiful stone? No.

The issue is... what is the acceptable level of compromise on CUT QUALITY when you are BALANCING the 4 C's.

My answer, and MY OPINION (which is what that thread was) is that you do not NEED a super ideal. Just like you don't need a D. Yes, if you CAN afford it... get one. But all too often on these boards people are faced with balancing size, color and BUDGET. And SOMETHING has to give.

Super ideals cost more. Often a LOT more per carat. And I'm not of the opinion that someone should buy a 1 carat J Super ideal over an H GIA 3Ex with a fantastic idealscope because the difference between a Super Ideal and a stone without precision faceting but with 'ideal' light return is GREAT ENOUGH to justify the color drop. Again it's about BALANCE.

For MOST consumers: a GIA Ex with an excellent idealscope/ASET performance is going to be a fantastic stone AND will allow them to balance color and budget BETTER, than someone telling them they have to have a Super Ideal. Because IMO, telling someone they HAVE to HAVE a super ideal is just as INCORRECT as telling them they HAVE to have a D because it's the best.

I always try to explain this to people AND encourage them to go see (WHEN POSSIBLE) super ideals (like Hearts on Fire) next to great GIA Ex stones to decide what THEY personally NEED for themselves. Just like I try to encourage people to go in and see what their personal color tolerances are. BUT, it is not always POSSIBLE that that they do so. So I try to provide them with as much information as possible.

Not everyone has to have or CAN have the best in all categories of the 4 C's. It's about BALANCE. That's what the thread I linked to you is about. It's abotu differentiating between LIKE TO HAVE and HAVE TO HAVE. Would I like to have a D Super ideal. Of course. Do I NEED to have one? No.

I hope that explains the issue betters. And I will update that thread with this post just to clarify.

Okay?
Great post Gypsy. Very sensible and well articulated approach to maximizing value on a diamond purchase. As you say, few of us are insisting on D FL Superideals, so we are all looking for that optimal balance of qualities that are most important to us.

Diamond shoppers are well served by understanding your perspective. And I know many people have benefited from your guidance and appreciate the time, effort and expertise that you freely give to this community.
 

Diamond_Hawk

Brilliant_Rock
Trade
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
1,229
Gypsy|1412124715|3759531 said:
Okay so...

Let me explain the point of the link I posted earlier. As I think it was missed.

YES you can tell the difference between a BGD Signature or an Infinity and a GIA EX/EX with a fanastic ASET/IS combo or a 'regular' AGS0 without the precision faceting when you see them side by side, and definitely once your eyes are trained. And even if they are untrained some times and not next to a less precisely cut stone.

It's like saying... will I be able to see the difference between a D and a G. Well, YES. Your eyes work, presumably. I am not color sensitive (I don't generally let color bother me and appreciate each color for what it is), but of course I can SEE color difference, quite well actually.

And even a novice can spot the difference between a D and a G when they are side by side, like in the tray example Wink gave. Just like most people can see the difference between a GIA Ex with a great idealscope image and a perfect Infinity when side by side. Why? Because there IS a difference.

That's not the issue for me.

The "Super Ideal" issue is just like color to me. YES, I can see the difference between a D and a G. But... does it have to bother me? No. I can appreciate the G for what it is. And I don't NEED to buy a D. Even though there IS a difference.

Not everyone can afford a D. In fact MOST of the time on PS we don't push colorless at all, let ALONE D. Why? Because buying a diamond is about BALANCING the 4 C's.

Not everyone can afford a D IF Super ideal in the PERFECT size. So the question then becomes: what CAN you compromise on without compromising TOO MUCH.

That's where that thread I posted comes in. YES, super ideals are fabulous. D's are fabulous too. Do you NEED a super ideal to get a fantastic looking stone? NO. You DO NOT. Same as you do not need a D to get a fantastic looking stone.

You wear diamonds on the hand ALONE or with stones of similar cut quality and color.

You don't wear them in a tray next to a Super Ideal. Just like you don't wear an H next to a D. Why? Because there is a difference, of course. Now, does that mean the H is not a gorgeous color? NO. Does that mean the GIA Ex with a great idealscope is not a beautiful stone? No.

The issue is... what is the acceptable level of compromise on CUT QUALITY when you are BALANCING the 4 C's.

My answer, and MY OPINION (which is what that thread was) is that you do not NEED a super ideal. Just like you don't need a D. Yes, if you CAN afford it... get one. But all too often on these boards people are faced with balancing size, color and BUDGET. And SOMETHING has to give.

Super ideals cost more. Often a LOT more per carat. And I'm not of the opinion that someone should buy a 1 carat J Super ideal over an H GIA 3Ex with a fantastic idealscope because the difference between a Super Ideal and a stone without precision faceting but with 'ideal' light return is GREAT ENOUGH to justify the color drop. Again it's about BALANCE.

For MOST consumers: a GIA Ex with an excellent idealscope/ASET performance is going to be a fantastic stone AND will allow them to balance color and budget BETTER, than someone telling them they have to have a Super Ideal. Because IMO, telling someone they HAVE to HAVE a super ideal is just as INCORRECT as telling them they HAVE to have a D because it's the best.

I always try to explain this to people AND encourage them to go see (WHEN POSSIBLE) super ideals (like Hearts on Fire) next to great GIA Ex stones to decide what THEY personally NEED for themselves. Just like I try to encourage people to go in and see what their personal color tolerances are. BUT, it is not always POSSIBLE that that they do so. So I try to provide them with as much information as possible.

Not everyone has to have or CAN have the best in all categories of the 4 C's. It's about BALANCE. That's what the thread I linked to you is about. It's abotu differentiating between LIKE TO HAVE and HAVE TO HAVE. Would I like to have a D Super ideal. Of course. Do I NEED to have one? No.

I hope that explains the issue betters. And I will update that thread with this post just to clarify.

Okay?

Can I add my voice to the chorus of applause for this post? Bravo.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Gypsy|1412129582|3759584 said:
Lenapie,
In terms of ACA vs ES I can tell you what my EXPERIENCE has shown me since I am NOT a vendor. There used to be so minute a difference as not to matter. HOWEVER in the last year SPECIFICALLY I have noticed that it SEEMS as if WF has relaxed their ES line parameters. In the past they did not allow 60/60 stones for example. Or stones with certain other angle combos. NOW THEY DO.
I believe forum rules allow for clarifications of policy by trades people. In that spirit I would like to provide the following insight to avoid any misperceptions.

Over the past 5 and a half years our ES category qualifications have never been relaxed. In fact, over that time we have tightened the Expert Selection category requirements along with those of our A CUT ABOVE® brand.

It used to be that we had two categories; ACA and ES. Everything that did not make ACA fell to ES. That included various diamonds including those that did not have good H&A, and even those that did not make AGS0. In addition, the ES category used to house diamonds that came in through trade ups, some of which were originally sourced for customers through our virtual selection service and not intended for WF inventory to begin with. So, the category was very mixed with many ACA “near misses” but also stones that were quite dissimilar to ACA quality.

To help make the ES category coherent and to give it a consistent identity, we did two things. 1) we put new and stricter requirements on ES and 2) we created a third category called Premium Select (PS) where stones that failed to qualify for either ACA or ES would be offered.

So for the past many years, round ES diamonds are required to have an AGS0 or a GIA Triple Ex report AND industry standard H&A. More info on our ES category is posted to our website http://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/what-are-expert-selection-diamonds.htm

What you may have noticed in the last year is more GIA diamonds in our ES category as we try to offer a broader range of choices. Whether GIA or AGS they must conform to the same standard.

It is true that ES does contain many stones that differ from ACA in very minute ways. It is often difficult for customers to determine why an ES diamond did not make ACA because it needs only to miss one of many different qualifications. All of the specific requirements of ACA are fully detailed on this page: http://www.whiteflash.com/a-cut-above-diamonds-specifications-and-qualifications/

I hope this is helpful to understanding our inventory classification system.
 

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,422
Texas Leaguer|1412205708|3760207 said:
Gypsy|1412129582|3759584 said:
Lenapie,
In terms of ACA vs ES I can tell you what my EXPERIENCE has shown me since I am NOT a vendor. There used to be so minute a difference as not to matter. HOWEVER in the last year SPECIFICALLY I have noticed that it SEEMS as if WF has relaxed their ES line parameters. In the past they did not allow 60/60 stones for example. Or stones with certain other angle combos. NOW THEY DO.
I believe forum rules allow for clarifications of policy by trades people. In that spirit I would like to provide the following insight to avoid any misperceptions.

Over the past 5 and a half years our ES category qualifications have never been relaxed. In fact, over that time we have tightened the Expert Selection category requirements along with those of our A CUT ABOVE® brand.

It used to be that we had two categories; ACA and ES. Everything that did not make ACA fell to ES. That included various diamonds including those that did not have good H&A, and even those that did not make AGS0. In addition, the ES category used to house diamonds that came in through trade ups, some of which were originally sourced for customers through our virtual selection service and not intended for WF inventory to begin with. So, the category was very mixed with many ACA “near misses” but also stones that were quite dissimilar to ACA quality.

To help make the ES category coherent and to give it a consistent identity, we did two things. 1) we put new and stricter requirements on ES and 2) we created a third category called Premium Select (PS) where stones that failed to qualify for either ACA or ES would be offered.

So for the past many years, round ES diamonds are required to have an AGS0 or a GIA Triple Ex report AND industry standard H&A. More info on our ES category is posted to our website http://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/what-are-expert-selection-diamonds.htm

What you may have noticed in the last year is more GIA diamonds in our ES category as we try to offer a broader range of choices. Whether GIA or AGS they must conform to the same standard.

It is true that ES does contain many stones that differ from ACA in very minute ways. It is often difficult for customers to determine why an ES diamond did not make ACA because it needs only to miss one of many different qualifications. All of the specific requirements of ACA are fully detailed on this page: http://www.whiteflash.com/a-cut-above-diamonds-specifications-and-qualifications/

I hope this is helpful to understanding our inventory classification system.
Thx for the detailed explanation Bryan.

Can I ask, looking at the diamonds unaided, in various lighting conditions, what % of ES would you say you and other expert staff would be able to pick in a blind (pepsi) test from ACA?
And then the same question for someone 'off the street'. e.g. a brand new non diamond employee etc.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Garry H (Cut Nut)|1412206990|3760220 said:
Texas Leaguer|1412205708|3760207 said:
Gypsy|1412129582|3759584 said:
Lenapie,
In terms of ACA vs ES I can tell you what my EXPERIENCE has shown me since I am NOT a vendor. There used to be so minute a difference as not to matter. HOWEVER in the last year SPECIFICALLY I have noticed that it SEEMS as if WF has relaxed their ES line parameters. In the past they did not allow 60/60 stones for example. Or stones with certain other angle combos. NOW THEY DO.
I believe forum rules allow for clarifications of policy by trades people. In that spirit I would like to provide the following insight to avoid any misperceptions.

Over the past 5 and a half years our ES category qualifications have never been relaxed. In fact, over that time we have tightened the Expert Selection category requirements along with those of our A CUT ABOVE® brand.

It used to be that we had two categories; ACA and ES. Everything that did not make ACA fell to ES. That included various diamonds including those that did not have good H&A, and even those that did not make AGS0. In addition, the ES category used to house diamonds that came in through trade ups, some of which were originally sourced for customers through our virtual selection service and not intended for WF inventory to begin with. So, the category was very mixed with many ACA “near misses” but also stones that were quite dissimilar to ACA quality.

To help make the ES category coherent and to give it a consistent identity, we did two things. 1) we put new and stricter requirements on ES and 2) we created a third category called Premium Select (PS) where stones that failed to qualify for either ACA or ES would be offered.

So for the past many years, round ES diamonds are required to have an AGS0 or a GIA Triple Ex report AND industry standard H&A. More info on our ES category is posted to our website http://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/what-are-expert-selection-diamonds.htm

What you may have noticed in the last year is more GIA diamonds in our ES category as we try to offer a broader range of choices. Whether GIA or AGS they must conform to the same standard.

It is true that ES does contain many stones that differ from ACA in very minute ways. It is often difficult for customers to determine why an ES diamond did not make ACA because it needs only to miss one of many different qualifications. All of the specific requirements of ACA are fully detailed on this page: http://www.whiteflash.com/a-cut-above-diamonds-specifications-and-qualifications/

I hope this is helpful to understanding our inventory classification system.
Thx for the detailed explanation Bryan.

Can I ask, looking at the diamonds unaided, in various lighting conditions, what % of ES would you say you and other expert staff would be able to pick in a blind (pepsi) test from ACA?
And then the same question for someone 'off the street'. e.g. a brand new non diamond employee etc.
It's very hard to say Garry. Obviously the parameters are quite similar. The percentages would be quite small for the experts and smaller yet for the non experts.

I do get the point that cut quality among all of our in-stock diamonds is at a level that is difficult or impossible to discern with the naked eye. I guess that comes with the territory of the niche we are catering to. The same would be true for clarity if all we sold were VS1 and above. But the fact that certain diamond quality aspects are non-obvious does not imply that they are not important to many consumers.

I think you coined the term "mind clean cut" and I think that is what we are dealing with here. Consumers who have learned how important cut quality is to diamond beauty tend to not want to make compromises in this area, even if differences are nuanced. And I think it is relevant to point out that we are not talking about a big dollar premium between our ES and ACA categories.
 

MelisendeDiamonds

Shiny_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
234
Texas Leaguer|1412205708|3760207 said:
So for the past many years, round ES diamonds are required to have an AGS0 or a GIA Triple Ex report AND industry standard H&A. More info on our ES category is posted to our website http://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/what-are-expert-selection-diamonds.htm

Industry Standard H&A what is that?

HRD Standard?
This article's standard https://www.pricescope.com/journal/hearts_and_arrows_diamonds_and_basics_diamond_cutting?
Typical Dealer standards which are all over the place?
Or the GIA/AGSL/EGL standard which is that if Hearts and Arrows is inscribed on the girdle it is copied to comments of the grading report leading to the false assumption by some consumers that they graded it "Hearts and Arrows". As in there is no standard as far as these labs are concerned.

Texas Leaguer|1412205708|3760207 said:
It is true that ES does contain many stones that differ from ACA in very minute ways. It is often difficult for customers to determine why an ES diamond did not make ACA because it needs only to miss one of many different qualifications.

Then why not be transparent and state why it didn't meet ACA standard in the listing.
 

Gypsy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
40,225
Bryon, Thank you for your kind works and for your clarification. I am troubled though. My experience really doesn't match what you wrote. I have noticed that many of the ES stone idealscopes are showing a significantly larger amount of leakage than I've seen in the past in the ES catagory. I wonder why that is.

DiamondHawk, thank you as well.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
MelisendeDiamonds|1412215738|3760307 said:
Texas Leaguer|1412205708|3760207 said:
So for the past many years, round ES diamonds are required to have an AGS0 or a GIA Triple Ex report AND industry standard H&A. More info on our ES category is posted to our website http://www.whiteflash.com/about-diamonds/diamond-education/what-are-expert-selection-diamonds.htm

MelisendeDiamonds|1412215738|3760307 said:
Industry Standard H&A what is that?

Legitimate question Haroutioun. Early on there were only a few companies cutting and marketing hearts and arrows. As the market responded to precision cutting more cutting houses improved their capablilites to cut to a higher level of optical precision and more companies began marketing H&A. Various "versions" emerged, some quite questionable. What we did was to take a careful look at the H&A offerings from firms that were actually proving their claims with imaging. Some of the most notable ones are discussed on this forum frequently. We studied their images and determined what their tolerances were, and that formed the basis of our concept of "industry standard". In the process of that study we found many, many examples of "H&A" being marketed well outside of what legitimate firms, like those participating here, were offering.


Texas Leaguer|1412205708|3760207 said:
It is true that ES does contain many stones that differ from ACA in very minute ways. It is often difficult for customers to determine why an ES diamond did not make ACA because it needs only to miss one of many different qualifications.

MelisendeDiamonds|1412215738|3760307 said:
Then why not be transparent and state why it didn't meet ACA standard in the listing.
We are totally transparent! Is there another firm in the world that lays out the entire recipe for their brand, with specifications and requirements that we hold ourselves accountable for? The notion that we should somehow be expected to include in descriptions of our products all the specific characteristics that KEEP it from being the best of the best, is unreasonable. Not only can customers who are interested read the published specs and determine for themselves why a particular stone is categorized a particular way, but we are asked regularly by customers why a certain ES did not make ACA and we are more than willing to walk them through the analysis.
 

Texas Leaguer

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,760
Gypsy|1412216955|3760315 said:
Bryon, Thank you for your kind works and for your clarification. I am troubled though. My experience really doesn't match what you wrote. I have noticed that many of the ES stone idealscopes are showing a significantly larger amount of leakage than I've seen in the past in the ES catagory. I wonder why that is.
Gypsy, I think this perception stems from the fact that the category is much more homogeneous today than it was in the past. Because of the tighter requirements those outliers, which there always have been and always will be, seem more divergent than in the past. But if you could go back in time, you would definitely see more variability in the category than there is today. Granted, the category has always been dominated by ACA "near misses" but in the past there was all kinds of variety in everything from shapes to cut grades to light performance images. Today, entry into the ES category requires the top cut grade from either of the top two labs, and in the case of rounds, distinct H&A patterning as well.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top