To the naked eye, how does light performance differ between a Whiteflash Expert Selection and an A C

[Kim N]

For those of you who've had the opportunity to look at in person or own both an ES and an ACA:

Is it that the hearts or arrows in the Expert Selection are not quite as perfectly symmetrical as in the ACA?

Does the ES not show as much brilliance and fire? Can someone describe the difference in brilliance and fire between the two (like how Mara described the differences in flashes between ACA New Line and ACA Classic yesterday, or how Shay compared flashes in her SuperbCert and ACA)?

Thanks for the help!

Here's an IdealScope image of an ES that I'm looking at. It seems like there's slightly more light leakage than in the ACAs I looked at.

 

[jcrow]

from what i saw- i thought that the ACA had crisper arrows. the lines were crisper and more defined than the experts that i looked at. but i am new to all this.

 

[Regular Guy]

Jellybeans,

You''ll want to have reference to this thread.

BTW, although, in his mind, I later understood that Superidealist had a problematic "thing" with WF, I originally only understood the analysis to be a matter of information, and Brian''s final response gives some added perspective as well.

Regards,

 

[Mara]

There's virtually no visual difference at all in the well-cut almostACA ES stones and the real ACA's. Your eye cannot pick up these minute differences that experts like Brian can...

I remember having a discussion on the phone with him about that and he told me that the human eye can only see certain differences, ES's and ACA's are so well-cut, each one in their own right, that my naked consumer eye would not pick out the tiny thing that made the ES an ES instead of an ACA. It may have been one tiny thing that was not 'just so', he is so particular about his ACA brand that not just any stone cut to be an ACA gets in there.

Also, when we were in TX and did the Pepsi Taste Test with the diamonds, 5 were ACA and 1 was ES. I couldn't tell the difference between ANY of the stones, my eye was so confused by all the blingy beauty! The ES when he pointed it out looked just as good from a visual perspective as the ACA's did. My point is that they are both beautiful, it's not like the ES's are lacking in any way to your naked eye. They just did not make the 'brand' cut.

So chances are if it's a beautiful ES and the numbers are good and the IS is good and Brian loves it (I trust his eye big time) then I'd buy it over ACA. Sorry Brian, but I love ACA's too!!!

 

[Kim N]

Jcrow, Ira Z., and Mara, thanks for all the information.

Part of the reason I asked is that two of the stones I'm comparing now are ACAs, and one is ES. I like the numbers for the ES more, but it's actually more expensive than the two ACAs because it's VS2 rather than SI1 and SI2. So, would you suggest I wait until WF gets an ES in stock that's SI so that it'll be cheaper?

And speaking of the numbers, I had this question in another thread, but is 34.8/40.9 crown/pavilion angles a good combination?

Thanks again for all your help. This forum has been invaluable.

 

[Regular Guy]

I could imagine WF valued dedicated customers, and that if you have a moderate amout of time, and told them your requirements, they''d help you meet them. Alternately, and in the same proposed phone call, you could ask about those 3 you have in mind right now, and you might learn something phenomenal about one of them that would close the deal immediately (....maybe each time you turn one of the diamonds clockwise, and to the right, you would get a vision of either the Marx Brothers or the Pope, depending on your political affiliation).

You just never know!

 

[belle]

Date: 10/11/2005 12:30:53 PM
Author: jellybeans
Jcrow, Ira Z., and Mara, thanks for all the information.

Part of the reason I asked is that two of the stones I''m comparing now are ACAs, and one is ES. I like the numbers for the ES more, but it''s actually more expensive than the two ACAs because it''s VS2 rather than SI1 and SI2. So, would you suggest I wait until WF gets an ES in stock that''s SI so that it''ll be cheaper?

And speaking of the numbers, I had this question in another thread, but is 34.8/40.9 crown/pavilion angles a good combination?

Thanks again for all your help. This forum has been invaluable.

there is minutia of a difference here. if you''ve found a stone you like, get it now.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 10/11/2005 12:58:02 PM
Author: belle

Date: 10/11/2005 12:30:53 PM
Author: jellybeans
Jcrow, Ira Z., and Mara, thanks for all the information.

Part of the reason I asked is that two of the stones I''m comparing now are ACAs, and one is ES. I like the numbers for the ES more, but it''s actually more expensive than the two ACAs because it''s VS2 rather than SI1 and SI2. So, would you suggest I wait until WF gets an ES in stock that''s SI so that it''ll be cheaper?

And speaking of the numbers, I had this question in another thread, but is 34.8/40.9 crown/pavilion angles a good combination?

Thanks again for all your help. This forum has been invaluable.

there is minutia of a difference here. if you''ve found a stone you like, get it now.

One of the problems with the unknown (including the ever present possibility of price increases) is its...unknown quality.

Belle may be right, although I don''t know how much money we''re talking about. Besides, the chances of seeing both the Marx Brothers and the Pope are infinitesimally small.

Still, a chat couldn''t hurt with the guys there, and I''d recommend it.

 

[Kim N]

Thanks, Ira Z. and Belle, for the input. LOL, Ira Z., about the vision of the Marx Brothers or the Pope.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/11/2005 1:15:17 PM
Author: Regular Guy

Besides, the chances of seeing both the Marx Brothers and the Pope are infinitesimally small.

Ira, you definitely added a unique flavor to this thread! LOL.

 

[aljdewey]

Honestly, I don''t think there IS a discernable light performance difference between ACA stones and ES stones.

You must understand (heee hee) that ACA''s are hearts and arrows diamonds.......and to qualify as an "A Cut Above" hearts and arrows diamond, the PATTERN needs to be crisp and flawless. If a stone is rejected as an ACA, it''s most likely due to a deficiency in the precision of the *pattern*, not a deficiency in light performance.

Brian is VERY exacting on his brand. One heart could have a cleft just beyond normal. One arrow could be slightly askew. The separation between the hearts might not as 100% perfectly crisp. Any of these things could knock a diamond out of "ACA" status but have no effect on its light performance.