Becoming slightly obsessed over this stone - please can you help me decide?

[IssyBelle]

Hello,
I’d very much appreciate your opinions/thoughts on this diamond I’ve reserved. My initial budget for a stone was in the region of $5-5,000, as close to one carat as possible and in the ballpark of G/VS2 as a starting point.

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3988040.htm

This one is definitely pushing the budget but each time I think I’ve made a decision to keep learning and keep looking it keeps drawing me back.

From my (extremely) limited knowledge I haven’t seen many stones available in this size. They seem to be in the lower .80’s or jump straight to 0.90 plus (I’m probably completely wrong on this).

I’m based in the U.K. and have never bought a diamond this way before either, don’t get me wrong, it’s great as it gives you complete control on the decision but it can also be somewhat overwhelming for someone as clueless as me.

WF also have a .78 F/VVS1 or a .813 G/VS1 both of which are more budget friendly at just under $5k.

0.813 - there is an area of green on the ASET about the 4 o’clock position, is this bad??
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3964555.htm

0.78
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3988041.htm

As I can no longer think straight or seemingly make a decision I need your help. If it were you, would you go over budget for the larger stone?

Will it look noticeably larger than the .78 or .81?

Settings wise I was thinking of a simple 4 or 6 prong in platinum.

If I go for the .78 or .81 I don’t want to end up hearing that nagging voice in my head saying that I should have just gone for the .88 and likewise if I go for the .88 I don’t want to think it may not have been worth going over budget for (I’m not reluctant to go over budget if it’s the right decision).

Apologies if I’ve rambled on, I’ve started to feel that I’m losing the plot..........

 

[coda72]

You are looking at all ACA diamonds by Whiteflash, so no need for any concerns in the ASETs you may have. They are all beautifully cut diamonds. With these 3 diamonds as choices, and keeping in your budget, I would go with the 0.813 carat. There's a small size difference between the 0.813 and the 0.88, but I don't think it's substantial enough to pay such a large difference in price you would pay for the 0.88. With the 0.88 you are paying for the color and the clarity, and unless you value such high color and clarity, you will be happy with the 0.813 carat. In the end, you have to decide what matters most to you. For me personally, I would probably go with a stone like this one
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3917005.htm
But my sweet spot is H color and an eyeclean SI1. Everyone is different though, and you need to figure out what your favorite specs are and base your decision on that.

 

[flyingpig]

0.813 - there is an area of green on the ASET about the 4 o’clock position, is this bad??
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3964555.htm

That is because the girdle is dug out.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/visible_effects_painting_digging_superideal_diamonds
Actually, the girdle is dug out all around the edges, not just at the 4 o'clock. While digging is not uncommon among superideal cut diamonds, I have not seen anything like that, especially from WF ACA.

 

[Yimmers]

The difference between the .78 and .88 will be noticeable. Less so between the .81 and .88. If you have sharp eyes, you may sense the difference.

Honestly, if it was a toss up between a more expensive setting vs the center stone, pull the trigger on the .88. You can always get a cheaper setting, and upgrade later.

 

[Matthews1127]

Difference in mm spread: 0.17 x 0.15mm between 0.88 and 0.81. Quite honestly, I don’t believe spread difference is really noticeable until you hit the 0.20+ mark. The spread differentiation is so minute, you have to decide if that is worth stretching or expanding your budget. Weighing your options: is this really worth the clarity & color grade upcharge for such minimal size difference? If the 0.81 is eye clean & mind clean, you like the color grade, and it’s something you can not only live with, but APPRECIATE, why spend the extra money on something that will give you the same satisfaction, with a higher price tag, and take away money for a nicer, better quality setting? If, for some reason, the 0.88 speaks to you, you truly feel this decision will haunt you, if you pass on it, and the setting is not a priority, then I encourage you to jump on it; you have to be able to live with the choice, and love what’s on your finger.
This truly is now your choice.
A tough choice, but with all of the above info, an informed choice.
If this were me*, I’d HAVE to see them side by side, in person, in different lighting environments to make a final decision. If you have that option, take it!

 

[mrs-b]

Hi @IssyBelle -

I understand all your parameters. So I'm aware I'm going out on a limb when I say that there is absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that I'd be buying *this* diamond:

https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3586226.htm

Yes, it's an H, yes, it's an SI1, and yes, it's an Expert Selection - but let's break that down....

The fact that it's an expert selection gives you a large degree of assurance. It's been chosen specifically as a stone to add to WhiteFlash's inventory on the basis that it has the same sorts of cut parameters as a normal ACA stone. I believe that Expert Selection and Premium Select stones are also guaranteed to be eye clean.

PLEASE don't rule out an SI1 stone. i think all of us who have been buying stones here can tell stories of SI stones that were eye clean and VS stones that were not. This stone wouldn't BE an Expert Selection stone were it not eye clean, so that should immediately remove any concern about this stone being nice and clean.

The essential difference between an ACA and an Expert Selection is that WF did not cut the Expert Selection stones. However, they are considered to be sufficiently equal in quality to represent stones WF are confident in adding to their inventory, and for which they're happy to offer a lifetime trade up option - the same as they do for their ACA stones. This stone also has an AGS triple zero rating and it has a beautiful ASET. Truly stellar.

So all that to say - this stone is a bargain. It has the same sort of level of performance as an ACA stone, it has all the same protections and privileges that an ACA stone has, and it's cheaper.

And did I mention it's BIGGER?

At .99 ct, you're basically at the 1ct mark. The visual difference between a .78ct stone, or a .81ct stone - and a .99ct stone is obvious. It's a clearly larger stone. And you are as close to 1ct as it's humanly possible to be - without crossing that expensive barrier.

As for it being an H - nobody here ever complains about an H. An I is generally where tint might kick in - and not always at that level either. An H will be a nice white stone.

I would strongly encourage you to consider this stone - I think it will give you more of what you really want. And there's no doubt that this is a gorgeous, gorgeous diamond. Apart from anything else - WhiteFlash wouldn't have hand chosen it to add to their inventory if it wasn't. Do yourself a favor and at least ask about it....

Good luck!

 

[TreeScientist]

The essential difference between an ACA and an Expert Selection is that WF did not cut the Expert Selection stones. However, they are considered to be sufficiently equal in quality to represent stones WF are confident in adding to their inventory, and for which they're happy to offer a lifetime trade up option - the same as they do for their ACA stones. This stone also has an AGS triple zero rating and it has a beautiful ASET. Truly stellar.

Just as a correction, this part is wrong. Whiteflash does not cut ANY of their stones. They purchase stones from various cutters whom they have a relationship with that meet the criteria that they have set out for their ACA line. The difference between an ACA and a Expert Selection is that ES diamonds have a minor inperfection in the cut (perhaps a heart slightly out of alignment, or slight painting/digging of the crown) that would cause them to not get into the ACA line. However, I've seen some slipping recently in the ACA line in this regard, such as the crown digging pointed out in the .813 by @flyingpig.

This is the main difference between CBIs and ACAs: CBI is a single cutting house that crafts their own stones. Whiteflash carefully selects stones from various cutting houses.

 

[tyty333]

Email (or chat) with Whiteflash and ask for a photo of the 3 stones you are looking at together. This will give you an idea of the size difference and
any color difference. I tend to say go bigger but dont blow your budget!

 

[ringo865]

I was going to suggest what mrs-b did; that you look at (or ask whiteflash to pull) some expert or premium selection stones that are closer to one carat but staying within your budget and other criteria. They will happily do side-by-side photos for you and tell you honestly the differences between stones.

Most people will not be able to tell in real life (without ASET or idealscope images) the difference on your hand between an ES, PS, or ACA. In the UK, a ~carat stone cut with ideal proportions (as ES, PS, and ACAs are) is going to be large, beautiful, and extremely noticeable.

 

[TreeScientist]

I was going to suggest what mrs-b did; that you look at (or ask whiteflash to pull) some expert or premium selection stones that are closer to one carat but staying within your budget and other criteria. They will happily do side-by-side photos for you and tell you honestly the differences between stones.

Most people will not be able to tell in real life (without ASET or idealscope images) the difference on your hand between an ES, PS, or ACA. In the UK, a ~carat stone cut with ideal proportions (as ES, PS, and ACAs are) is going to be large, beautiful, and extremely noticeable.

While I agree on this point, I would add as a corollary that most people would not be able to tell an ACA from an ES provided that the ES is well cut. While pretty much every ACA is well cut within a narrow range, I've found that there's a much larger range of quality in the ES range. For example, the .99 carat ES posted about is very nicely cut. One of the hearts at 2 o' clock appears to be slightly out of place, but I think that such a small variability would be simply imperceptible concerning IRL performance.

On the other hand, there are some ES stones that have a questionable cut quality. Like this one:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3202009.htm

35.5/40.9 CA/PA and green and white areas under the table in the ASET? Yeah, I think most discerning viewers would be able to tell a difference. Probably still a well-performing diamond, but not ACA level.

Same goes for the Premium Select line. There are very nice stones like this (beautiful stone IMO):
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3979470.htm

And there are not-so-nice ones:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3571567.htm

Point being: I think you cannot make such a blanket statement regarding all stones in the ES and PS lines. With the ACA line, they're all really darn nice. At least, all of the one's I've seen have certainly not been what any on this site would consider badly cut.

But one must be more selective with the ES and PS lines. You cannot just blindly choose from these lines like you could with the ACA line and get a stone that performs comparably to an ACA.

 

[JLW05]

That is because the girdle is dug out.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/visible_effects_painting_digging_superideal_diamonds
Actually, the girdle is dug out all around the edges, not just at the 4 o'clock. While digging is not uncommon among superideal cut diamonds, I have not seen anything like that, especially from WF ACA.

What are some tell-tale signs of digging? I have read the PS article on digging and painting but the images were too small to be of help to me. How can I look at an ASET and identify digging?

 

[TreeScientist]

What are some tell-tale signs of digging? I have read the PS article on digging and painting but the images were too small to be of help to me. How can I look at an ASET and identify digging?

The main sign is the green claws reaching in from the girdle of the diamond on the ASET, as is the case at 4 o' clock on this ASET. I'm not sure where he is getting the "digging around all of the edges" from. Any digging not large enough to produce the green claws would be very hard to determine. Small variations in the color of the two little divots around the girdle (appearing completely red instead of white) in the IdealScope may be a sign, but differences in lighting and symmetry in the process of taking an IdealScope image may be responsible for these. I would be hesitant to say you could determine this from looking at an IdealScope image. Too many variables at play here. Beside, I would hazard a guess that any digging so minor as not to produce the green claws would not affect performance anyway, so not even worth worrying about.

Even in this case, the one corner dug out at 4 o'clock in this diamond would likely not produce any differences in IRL performance. It's just not perfect. Or, to put it better, it's not what we're used to seeing from ACAs, which is why @flyingpig pointed it out.

 

[Snowdrop13]

Are you absolutely set on having an ACA? There could be other options, Blue Nile, for one, something like this, maybe, with good numbers?

https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-details/LD10255237?click_id=136542607

Less hassle with taxes and shipping etc!

Also, I personally would not pay for such high colour and clarity, I have an ACA (admittedly in a pendant, so I’m not looking at it all the time) which is about this size range and is I VS2. It looks perfectly white to me.

 

[mrs-b]

Just as a correction, this part is wrong. Whiteflash does not cut ANY of their stones. They purchase stones from various cutters whom they have a relationship with that meet the criteria that they have set out for their ACA line. The difference between an ACA and a Expert Selection is that ES diamonds have a minor inperfection in the cut (perhaps a heart slightly out of alignment, or slight painting/digging of the crown) that would cause them to not get into the ACA line. However, I've seen some slipping recently in the ACA line in this regard, such as the crown digging pointed out in the .813 by @flyingpig.

This is the main difference between CBIs and ACAs: CBI is a single cutting house that crafts their own stones. Whiteflash carefully selects stones from various cutting houses.

I don't agree with this. WF has their cutting standards. They send those standards to the people in Antwerp who cut their stones. I'm not sure how that qualifies as them not cutting their own stones. it doesn't happen in the US - granted. But for me, the address of the cutter makes no difference. I think to make a blanket statement that WF doesn't cut their own stones is hugely misleading.

You're right about the Expert Selection differentiation. I just got off the phone with WF after a long chat. The stones in the ES are, as I said, eye clean. They also still qualify for all upgrade privileges. The only difference is that they are stones cut by WF - nobody else. And if you can tell the difference between an ACA and an ES - good luck to you - and "you're a better man than me, Gunga Din."

Premium Select is the class of diamonds sold by WF that may not be cut by WF. These include trade-ins, I gather. These are stones that meet industry standard H&A classification. But they're not necessarily cut by WF.

Are there variations to this re source of stone? I think you're splitting hairs at this point. I've emailed this thread to WF and will ask Bryan to come comment on it.

Anyway - moving on.....

The people at WF are lovely, @IssyBelle, and will quickly give you an opinion on the .99ct stone.

 

[TreeScientist]

I don't agree with this. WF has their cutting standards. They send those standards to the people in Antwerp who cut their stones. I'm not sure how that qualifies as them not cutting their own stones. it doesn't happen in the US - granted. But for me, the address of the cutter makes no difference. I think to make a blanket statement that WF doesn't cut their own stones is hugely misleading.

You're right about the Expert Selection differentiation. I just got off the phone with WF after a long chat. The stones in the ES are, as I said, eye clean. They also still qualify for all upgrade privileges. The only difference is that they are stones cut by WF - nobody else. And if you can tell the difference between an ACA and an ES - good luck to you - and "you're a better man than me, Gunga Din."

Premium Select is the class of diamonds sold by WF that may not be cut by WF. These include trade-ins, I gather. These are stones that meet industry standard H&A classification. But they're not necessarily cut by WF.

Are there variations to this re source of stone? I think you're splitting hairs at this point. I've emailed this thread to WF and will ask Bryan to come comment on it.

Anyway - moving on.....

The people at WF are lovely, @IssyBelle, and will quickly give you an opinion on the .99ct stone.

I always enjoy discourse with the industry experts, so I hope they will come in and contribute.

I never said anything about eye clean. That's besides the point. And I wasn't referring to the stone you posted. As I said in my post, the .99 is actually one of those I would say is a well-cut member of the ES line. It's a very nice stone.

What I said is that not every ES stone is close to the ACA level. And yes, I'm pretty sure I could tell the difference between this stone:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3202009.htm

and something like this:
https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3964572.htm

in real life. The first stone is visibly darker under the table, which is noticeable both in the photo and video. Same with the example I gave of a "not-so-good" stone from the PS line. Again, not terrible diamonds by any means, but if I was paying a premium for an in-house vetted stone, I personally would want the best possible performance. So discretion is advised when choosing diamonds from these lines to ensure you are getting a fantastic diamond that would be close to SuperIdeal performance.

 

[mrs-b]

I hear what you're saying, TreeScientist - and you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. I just don't agree with you. To be honest, since we both agree that the .99ct stone is a lovely, lovely diamond, I'm having a hard time understanding the point of your comments, and think it's more important to keep this thread on track.

The clarity issue is important to the OP - and it's to her that I was addressing my comments.

 

[TreeScientist]

I hear what you're saying, TreeScientist - and you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. I just don't agree with you. To be honest, since we both agree that the .99ct stone is a lovely, lovely diamond, I'm having a hard time understanding the point of your comments, and think it's more important to keep this thread on track.

The clarity issue is important to the OP - and it's to her that I was addressing my comments.

It is an issue of semantics. I'm not a fan of blanket statements where they are not warranted. But yes, to keep the thread on track regarding the OPs potential selections, I agree that the .99 would be a very nice choice. As to my personal opinion, I like the .92 E VVS that she originally posted. While I would have a hard time justifying the premium for the VVS clarity level, I am a sucker for high color stones. Furthermore, it is beautifully cut, and the size is rather nice for avoiding the .9 carat premium. Just like the .99 is nice for avoiding the 1 carat premium.

The BlueNile diamond posted by @Snowdrop13 also appears to be a very nice option. And as she said, it would be a nice choice for a European customer to avoid the customs hassles. Just comes down to what she wants.

 

[gm89uk]

Not al ES are eye clean just as not all ACA are eyeclean. Several of them have inquire just as is the ACA line. I would say the majority of ES are in line with ACA standard from a visual appearance but every now and again there is an ES stone that despite being H&A, would most likely be visually inferior to an ACA.

 

[IssyBelle]

Hey - it’s dinner time in the U.K. right now so I’m just feeding the troops and then walking my little Westie and then I’ll be right back

 

[flyingpig]

I'm not sure where he is getting the "digging around all of the edges" from

Look at the leakages by the arrowheads. None is perfectly triangular; some are a bit spready. I guess digging is not so severe mostly, with the exception of 4 o clock. I may need to correct myself; some sections may not be dug out. But, at least, there is something going on around the edges, which, again, we do not see too often from WF ACAs.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I got the message that my input might be helpful here. First of all, let me say that I admire the passion I see here and some other threads of a similar nature going on right now. It seems that many vendors have their dedicated fans and I think that is a result of our niche (ideal and super ideal) being one that is very, very customer focussed. And I think that bodes well for the industry and for both the merchants and of course their clients. While most of the commentary in this thread has been fairly accurate, there are a few clarifications that might illuminate certain aspects of our production operation and category characteristics.

First the categories, as that is the most straightforward and least sensitive. Our A CUT ABOVE category is pretty well understood in the pricescope community. For those that do not realize that we post all of our criteria, qualifications and requirements for the brand publicly, you can find them here:
https://www.whiteflash.com/a-cut-above-diamonds-specifications-and-qualifications/

In Expert Selection are diamonds that for one reason or another did not make the threshold of ACA. They are all AGS0 with "industry standard" hearts and arrows precision and all come with AGS Platinum dual light map reports.

Some understandable confusion exists over our Premium Select category. That is because within in the last couple of years, we re-purposed this category to contain primarily our GIA Triple Ex H&A inventory which we have been growing steadily. Our goal is to also have a broad array of options for "GIA only" customers looking for the best cut quality within the GIA Ex category, with fully vetted and in-stock goods.

Second, with regard to our production operation we are supplied with rounds primarily by the same sight holder cutting factory that has been cutting to our specifications for almost 18 years. As we tightened our requirements over the years, they have been keen to work with us and tighten their ability to hit those requirements and today their 'batting average' is the best it has ever been. Similarly, our princess cuts are manufactured by a different cutter, specializing in the finest cutting in that popular shape. And similarly, over the years they have become more precise in hitting all the marks for ACA.

In order to achieve our goal of having the biggest selection of in-stock ideal and super ideal diamonds, fully analyzed and imaged, in-house and under one roof, we also need to fill in certain sizes and color/clarity combinations that may not be in the production runs or may not be in sufficient quantities in those runs. For this part of the operation we rely on a select number of smaller manufactures. This often requires re-cutting to our specifications. Lastly, we also do custom cutting for clients when we do not have the desired diamond in stock or in the pipeline.

We try to be as transparent as possible about what we do and how we do it. We think consumers deserve real information with a minimum of spin. Having said that, we don't hold it against any company if they are not as forthcoming about their specifications or their buying and/or production operations as we are. Every business should expect to have a level of proprietary privacy. And every company has a right to "romance the stone" as they see fit.

Bottom line with regard to quality is that the tools and technologies that exist today enable any vendor to analyze exactly what any other vendor is doing. Non-contact measuring devices are very accurate, ray tracing has become very sophisticated, and graphical tools like VPA make it easy to see if there are any specialized techniques being employed. In the niche of super ideals, the "arms race" is no longer really about cut quality. It is more about scale - how do you continue to grow your business? How do you do everything necessary to produce these elite stones, provide all the diagnostics, stock the shelves with diamonds appealing to a wide variety of tastes and budgets, and provide the wide range of jewelry styles that are required by consumers today, and deliver accurately and on time? Oh, and provide service after the sale.

It is certainly not easy and we have the utmost respect for the other vendors who participate here. From what we can tell they are just as dedicated to those goals as we are.

I know I did not address every question in this thread. I would be happy to try to answer any I missed.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Look at the leakages by the arrowheads. None is perfectly triangular; some are a bit spready. I guess digging is not so severe mostly, with the exception of 4 o clock. I may need to correct myself; some sections may not be dug out. But, at least, there is something going on around the edges, which, again, we do not see too often from WF ACAs.

FP,
You are right about that example. It is a bit unusual to see in ACA. I will have our review team take another look at that diamond.
Do remember though, the red/green boundary in ASET is abrupt. So light coming from a fraction of a degree different will toggle between red and green. That is probably why you don't see any obvious differences in Ideal Scope.

 

[TreeScientist]

I got the message that my input might be helpful here. First of all, let me say that I admire the passion I see here and some other threads of a similar nature going on right now. It seems that many vendors have their dedicated fans and I think that is a result of our niche (ideal and super ideal) being one that is very, very customer focussed. And I think that bodes well for the industry and for both the merchants and of course their clients. While most of the commentary in this thread has been fairly accurate, there are a few clarifications that might illuminate certain aspects of our production operation and category characteristics.

First the categories, as that is the most straightforward and least sensitive. Our A CUT ABOVE category is pretty well understood in the pricescope community. For those that do not realize that we post all of our criteria, qualifications and requirements for the brand publicly, you can find them here:
https://www.whiteflash.com/a-cut-above-diamonds-specifications-and-qualifications/

In Expert Selection are diamonds that for one reason or another did not make the threshold of ACA. They are all AGS0 with "industry standard" hearts and arrows precision and all come with AGS Platinum dual light map reports.

Some understandable confusion exists over our Premium Select category. That is because within in the last couple of years, we re-purposed this category to contain primarily our GIA Triple Ex H&A inventory which we have been growing steadily. Our goal is to also have a broad array of options for "GIA only" customers looking for the best cut quality within the GIA Ex category, with fully vetted and in-stock goods.

Second, with regard to our production operation we are supplied with rounds primarily by the same sight holder cutting factory that has been cutting to our specifications for almost 18 years. As we tightened our requirements over the years, they have been keen to work with us and tighten their ability to hit those requirements and today their 'batting average' is the best it has ever been. Similarly, our princess cuts are manufactured by a different cutter, specializing in the finest cutting in that popular shape. And similarly, over the years they have become more precise in hitting all the marks for ACA.

In order to achieve our goal of having the biggest selection of in-stock ideal and super ideal diamonds, fully analyzed and imaged, in-house and under one roof, we also need to fill in certain sizes and color/clarity combinations that may not be in the production runs or may not be in sufficient quantities in those runs. For this part of the operation we rely on a select number of smaller manufactures. This often requires re-cutting to our specifications. Lastly, we also do custom cutting for clients when we do not have the desired diamond in stock or in the pipeline.

We try to be as transparent as possible about what we do and how we do it. We think consumers deserve real information with a minimum of spin. Having said that, we don't hold it against any company if they are not as forthcoming about their specifications or their buying and/or production operations as we are. Every business should expect to have a level of proprietary privacy. And every company has a right to "romance the stone" as they see fit.

Bottom line with regard to quality is that the tools and technologies that exist today enable any vendor to analyze exactly what any other vendor is doing. Non-contact measuring devices are very accurate, ray tracing has become very sophisticated, and graphical tools like VPA make it easy to see if there are any specialized techniques being employed. In the niche of super ideals, the "arms race" is no longer really about cut quality. It is more about scale - how do you continue to grow your business? How do you do everything necessary to produce these elite stones, provide all the diagnostics, stock the shelves with diamonds appealing to a wide variety of tastes and budgets, and provide the wide range of jewelry styles that are required by consumers today, and deliver accurately and on time? Oh, and provide service after the sale.

It is certainly not easy and we have the utmost respect for the other vendors who participate here. From what we can tell they are just as dedicated to those goals as we are.

I know I did not address every question in this thread. I would be happy to try to answer any I missed.

First off, thank you for replying to this thread. I have a great amount of respect for the industry members on this site, and I always welcome and value their participation.

Your post confirmed what I already knew re: multiple cutting houses vs a single cutting house. I don't have any problems with this. My future father in law is a businessman. I'm well aware of what it takes to scale a business, and the difficulties involved therein. So I commend you for having done such a good job with scaling Whiteflash.

My problem, however, lies in some of the looseness in what defines the WhiteFlash lines that has been popping up recently. This instance of digging in the above ACA is not the first time I've seen this issue in the line in the past 6 months. And there was another instance of a very obviously painted girdle in an ACA that was also called out in a somewhat recent thread. I'd have no problems with these stones being placed in the Expert Selection line. They're minor quibbles that would likely have very little impact on IRL performance. But they are certainly not perfect, which is what I thought the ACA line strove for. Same goes for that Expert Selection stone above. Now, I understand that the ES line is not perfect, but seriously? That stone has quite a bit of leakage under the table, and the proportions aren't even close to what most on this site would normally consider for their own stones. Pretty much any regular poster on this site knows that leakage under the table = bad. No comment regarding the PS line. I understand most of those are probably trade-ins.

Regarding the recent comparisons of the various vendors that have been popping up, I will be the first to say that I do not believe in a "secret sauce" (other than my grandpa's BBQ sauce, which he took with him to his grave ). I am a scientist with a background in geophysics. I have a decent understanding of optics. What I "believe" in is angles, geometric combinations, and precision of faceting. In short: What I "believe" in is consistency. And I'll be the first to say that, on the consistency front, the other vendor is leaps and bounds ahead. I've looked through many stones of both vendors, and I can honestly say that I've never seen anything even close to a "cheated" girdle in the other vendor's stones. Honestly, the only slight variability in their stones that I could even come close to seeing is in slight variations in clustering around the arrows. And one of their cutters came in to the thread where I posted a question about this and gave a very thorough explanation of star percentages and digital ASET scans vs actual ASET imaging. Very informative, and I gained even more respect for the brand that day, along with some newfound knowledge (always welcome for a scientist ).

So please explain the above variations that I'm seeing. I would love to hear a similar explanation about how cheated girdles or leakage under the table could be optimal.

 

[Snowdrop13]

Um, this is a great thread for detailed information but has become a bit derailed from the OPs original topic! @IssyBelle please come back and we’ll help you find a stone you love!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Tree,
Regarding our Expert Selection line you are correct that there is much more variation in that category, from near miss ACA that you have to actually tick through all the ACA qualifications to see where it failed, to stones with leakages apparent in static light performance imaging. The range is broader because the qualifications for the category are less stringent. But they have all passed the AGS ray tracer as ideal and all have a level of optical precision resulting in a distinct (if not perfect) H&A pattern. Still, by industry standards, very well cut diamonds. And the good thing is, the LP images are there to analyze enabling shoppers to decide for themselves which ones to reject and which ones to consider.

Regarding Premium Select, they are not trade-ins. We are selectively buying GIA graded H&A diamonds that have the light performance characteristics that puts them in the sweet spot of the GIA Ex cut category, as opposed to the bulk of GIA on the market which are cut to the margins of the very broad Ex grade.

Regarding painting and digging out, you won't see much evidence of that in our ACA category. When you do it is usually very minor. The example that @flyingpig posted is about as severe as you should ever see in ACA. And we will take another look at that one internally. You are right that there have been a few threads over the years about painted super ideals. Some that have been called out in ACA. Some time ago we made a management decision to no longer allow them in ACA, even though the upper halfs are intentionally fashioned that way to eliminate additional small areas of leakage. This was the technique made popular by Eightstar. Whiteflash experimented with this technique as well and marketed them for a period of time as "New Line". An argument can be made that these are actually 'super super' ideals! However, not everyone preferred this look over standard indexing of the uppers. And although the broad brush GIA system penalizes this kind of painting, it was not 'cheated' or 'swindled' in the sense of the cutter trying to save weight. The intent was to precision craft a more beautiful diamond. However, we discontinued that project after a relatively short trial period. Still today, of course, some do come back on trade-in. Due to the change I mentioned earlier they no longer go back into ACA.

I find it personally interesting that the upshot of that experiment is an indication that those small amounts of leakage that crown painting eliminates, apparently adds just enough contrast around the perimeter to enhance scintillation and visual appeal. That lesson I think also informs us on certain ASET signatures of fancy shapes that appear to have too much leakage, but in real life are quite appealing. Scintillation is something yet not fully understood.

Moreover, your main question seems to center around range of variation. As is clear from the examples you point out in our ES category there is a range of proportion combinations that can achieve AGS0. Our ACA are cut to quite a narrow range within it. Within that narrow range there is no real evidence that one proportion set is more beautiful than another if all the facets are aligned in harmony. Therefore we don't necessarily agree with the notion that narrowing the proportion set further is a worthwhile goal. Yes, you could make the argument that doing so would result in greater numerical consistency. But it is highly doubtful that it would contribute to added value in terms of actual light performance or beauty.

 

[IssyBelle]

Hey - firstly I want to say thank you to everyone who replied. It’s actually quite humbling to see the familiar names, whose opinions and recommendations I thoroughly enjoy reading in other threads, taking the time to help me.

@coda72 - I may have to broaden my search to include H/SI. I guess I’m still trying to determine my sweet spot.
@flyingpig - ah, right. I’ve not heard of digging before. Thank you for the link. As this stone would be a bit of a dream come true I’d probably rather it didn’t have this so may eliminate this particular stone as a contender.
@Yimmers - yes I had planned on a super simple setting so I could devote most of my budget to the stone itself so I definitely like your thinking.
@Matthews1127 - seeing the stones in person would be a dream option that’s for sure but sadly I can’t make that happen. I think I’m a bit old school as when I buy anything I much prefer to see it in person, it’s so much easier to properly get a feel for it. I think I need to write down the pros and cons, this may help it to stop spinning around in my head.
@mrs-b - ha yes that is bigger, you are definitely getting me to think out of my comfort zone. Thank you for breaking down the reasoning too. I am definitely open minded to an ES, right back at the start of my search (when it felt like fun!), I had my eye on a gorgeous ES, it sparked like crazy on the rotating video. At that time I didn’t fully understand the difference between both lines of stones and as it wasn’t much cheaper than a comparable ACA I figured maybe I should just aim for an ACA and be done with it. Anyway the ES didn’t hang about and with the benefit of hindsight maybe I should have just gone for it.
@tyty333 - yes good idea, I need to get onto this (I think WF are going to be fed up with me and my daft requests, surely I can’t be the only one can I?!).
@ringo865 - that’s a good point, as long as I’m at peace with the decision, as you say, no one else will know. I recently visited some local jewellers to complete some leg work re: colour/clarity preferences and when I started asking about the cut and certification they looked at me as if I was speaking a different language.

 

[TreeScientist]

Tree,
Regarding our Expert Selection line you are correct that there is much more variation in that category, from near miss ACA that you have to actually tick through all the ACA qualifications to see where it failed, to stones with leakages apparent in static light performance imaging. The range is broader because the qualifications for the category are less stringent. But they have all passed the AGS ray tracer as ideal and all have a level of optical precision resulting in a distinct (if not perfect) H&A pattern. Still, by industry standards, very well cut diamonds. And the good thing is, the LP images are there to analyze enabling shoppers to decide for themselves which ones to reject and which ones to consider.

Regarding Premium Select, they are not trade-ins. We are selectively buying GIA graded H&A diamonds that have the light performance characteristics that puts them in the sweet spot of the GIA Ex cut category, as opposed to the bulk of GIA on the market which are cut to the margins of the very broad Ex grade.

Regarding painting and digging out, you won't see much evidence of that in our ACA category. When you do it is usually very minor. The example that @flyingpig posted is about as severe as you should ever see in ACA. And we will take another look at that one internally. You are right that there have been a few threads over the years about painted super ideals. Some that have been called out in ACA. Some time ago we made a management decision to no longer allow them in ACA, even though the upper halfs are intentionally fashioned that way to eliminate additional small areas of leakage. This was the technique made popular by Eightstar. Whiteflash experimented with this technique as well and marketed them for a period of time as "New Line". An argument can be made that these are actually 'super super' ideals! However, not everyone preferred this look over standard indexing of the uppers. And although the broad brush GIA system penalizes this kind of painting, it was not 'cheated' or 'swindled' in the sense of the cutter trying to save weight. The intent was to precision craft a more beautiful diamond. However, we discontinued that project after a relatively short trial period. Still today, of course, some do come back on trade-in. Due to the change I mentioned earlier they no longer go back into ACA.

I find it personally interesting that the upshot of that experiment is an indication that those small amounts of leakage that crown painting eliminates, apparently adds just enough contrast around the perimeter to enhance scintillation and visual appeal. That lesson I think also informs us on certain ASET signatures of fancy shapes that appear to have too much leakage, but in real life are quite appealing. Scintillation is something yet not fully understood.

Moreover, your main question seems to center around range of variation. As is clear from the examples you point out in our ES category there is a range of proportion combinations that can achieve AGS0. Our ACA are cut to quite a narrow range within it. Within that narrow range there is no real evidence that one proportion set is more beautiful than another if all the facets are aligned in harmony. Therefore we don't necessarily agree with the notion that narrowing the proportion set further is a worthwhile goal. Yes, you could make the argument that doing so would result in greater numerical consistency. But it is highly doubtful that it would contribute to added value in terms of actual light performance or beauty.

Fair enough, I'll leave it at that. But I will say that, when it comes to any diamond, I'm more inclined to judge a diamond based on its individual merits rather than the brand. I have no doubt that two diamonds that are equally cut, down to the microscopic level, would look exactly the same no matter what cutting house they are coming out of. The same way the results coming out of my mass spec will be within 1/10000th of a percent of anyone else's results provided we have similarly-calibrated mass specs.

Buy the stone, not the brand. And buy the stone that meets your preferred criteria. Which will be different for everyone.

Any yes, I agree @Snowdrop13, let's get this thread back on track! We now return to your regularly-scheduled programming.

 

[IssyBelle]

@Snowdrop13 - no it doesn’t have to be an ACA or ES however I really like the transparency they provide. That’s a lovely stone you’ve picked and the price definitely is more budget friendly, do Blue Nile provide ASET etc? Would they be able to “transfer “ this stone to the U.K. site? I’ve no idea how this could/would work but I definitely like the idea of saving on customs/VAT.

@TreeScientist - yes that’s what kept bringing me back to the .88 E/VVSI. It seemed to give as close to a .90 but without the uplift in price.

@gm89uk - ah, from time to time I’ve seen the info relating to the stone mention “enquire”. Would this be an instance when the gemologist would fill you in on the details I wonder?

@Texas Leaguer - I love it when you input to threads. It’s like a mini lesson (in a really good way). I may need to read through a couple of times to get it to stick in my head.

@Snowdrop13 - ha yes it’s become slightly more detailed than I anticipated. Oh yes please, any help you could give on the stone search would be gratefully received.

 

[sledge]

Not sure if you've seen this yet or not, but here are some pics for comparison. FYI, although I've referred to them by carat weight so you could easily identify to the links you posted earlier from WF, I have actually entered the actual dimensions of each diamond.

If you'd like to verify this yourself...DiamDB

My own 2 cents is I'd drop the .813ct as there isn't much size difference, and we've established the ASET image at 4'oclock is odd. My second thought is that staying in budget would be more important to me than the very small size difference you see in the two diamonds.

If you want us to pull some diamonds from alternate sources, we can do that.


Pic 1 = ring size 6.5, .78ct (left) vs .813ct (right)


Pic 2 = ring size 6.5, .78ct (left) vs .88ct (right)

 

[Texas Leaguer]

@Snowdrop13 - no it doesn’t have to be an ACA or ES however I really like the transparency they provide. That’s a lovely stone you’ve picked and the price definitely is more budget friendly, do Blue Nile provide ASET etc? Would they be able to “transfer “ this stone to the U.K. site? I’ve no idea how this could/would work but I definitely like the idea of saving on customs/VAT.

@TreeScientist - yes that’s what kept bringing me back to the .88 E/VVSI. It seemed to give as close to a .90 but without the uplift in price.

@gm89uk - ah, from time to time I’ve seen the info relating to the stone mention “enquire”. Would this be an instance when the gemologist would fill you in on the details I wonder?

@Texas Leaguer - I love it when you input to threads. It’s like a mini lesson (in a really good way). I may need to read through a couple of times to get it to stick in my head.

@Snowdrop13 - ha yes it’s become slightly more detailed than I anticipated. Oh yes please, any help you could give on the stone search would be gratefully received.

Issy,
Thank for your kind words. Regarding your question about eye clean, @gm89uk is correct. Eye-clean is not a designation you can apply to a whole category. Unless there aren't many diamonds in it or unless there is nothing lower than VS1 ! Particularly as the size increases, the likelihood of an Si1 (or in some cases a VS2) not being technically eye-clean increases. We list in details if the stone meets our criteria for eye-clean as "Yes". If not, we list eye-clean as "Inquire". The reason being, we have a chance to give the customer more thorough read out on what you can see, from what distances, and from what viewing angles. And an overall assessment of how noticeable or difficult to notice it is. Many people tend to think of a stone that is not eye-clean as having something that jumps out to a casual observer. More often that is not the case. This can prevent a shopper from passing a stone that might actually be perfect for them if they understand it in more detail.