ACA Classic vs. New Line - The Best Way to Compare
- Thread starter kenny
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,280
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,547
Yeah, I''ll just take the bigger one!
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,280
Chesapeake
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 19
I''ve been looking a little, reading and listening ALOT since my introduction to you all on PS. We are still awaiting our refund on the deposit to the jeweler in St. Thomas. I am planning on meeting with Mark at Engagement Rings Direct in NY this weekend to look at some stones. I''m still rather undecided as to what I will end up with however, I am requesting to see IF and VVSI D''s. In addition, because I recently saw a S1 D at DeBeers that was very nice, I would like to have some lower clarity D''s to compare at the same time. DeBeers also had a 4 carat IF D heart shaped that was absolutely gorgeous.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,547
Chesapeake, it is good to hear from you! Mark has a good reputation here and I am sure will take good care of you! I''d also recommend Jonathan at Good Old Gold, who is in the Long Island area, I believe.
As a matter of fact, if you haven''t already, you should go to the Good Old Gold website (http://www.goodoldgold.com/) and read the pages on the 4 C''s. Jon has excellent pictures and commentary on cut, color, clarity, etc. You will see that you can''t tell the difference between D and E, for example if you ar after a truly colorless stone. Of course, perhaps you want D only for the rarity factor, and that''s fine. I, personally, will go as low as VS1, but if I had your budget and was looking at D color, I''d probably stay within VVS1 and 2.
We''ll be sincerely interested to hear what you come up with as far as diamonds go! I think we told you this before, but two of the finest designers for settings that we see around here are Leon Mege and Mark Morrell. You might want to take a look at those sites if you haven''t already.
http://www.mwmjewelry.com/
http://www.artofplatinum.com/
Good luck! (and sorry to go off topic, Kenny!)
Hi Kenny
Tough to separate the best from the very best - isn''t it?
From a tech standpoint, it isn''t that hard if you have the right equipment.
You got some really great photos, but the lighting is a bit off when photographing them.
Another very difficult thing to do, when photographing diamonds such as these, which respond so acutely is picking up anything "going on" overhead. I can see that in those photos the image of your camera setup, reflecting back.
This is a problem I have too on some stones. Recently, I had one that was so refractive it captured my hand pushing the button to take the photo with the camera.
I would suggest you get some white foamboard, and make a walls of white around the sides of the stones, and then put something like a a white cloth that will let light through on the top of it.
I''m sure you''ve discovered that the more magnified the image is that the focus become a lot more difficult,plus the slightest bit of dust shows up if you have really good optics when taking the photos.
ALso if you''re having glare influence, try using one polarizing filter - that will reduce the glare, which is especially useful in examining the girdles too.
If you have access to an incandescent ring light, this too, can show you some very interesting results if you have white around the diamond area, and you can control the height of the lighting variably in very slight increments..
Rockdoc
Tough to separate the best from the very best - isn''t it?
From a tech standpoint, it isn''t that hard if you have the right equipment.
You got some really great photos, but the lighting is a bit off when photographing them.
Another very difficult thing to do, when photographing diamonds such as these, which respond so acutely is picking up anything "going on" overhead. I can see that in those photos the image of your camera setup, reflecting back.
This is a problem I have too on some stones. Recently, I had one that was so refractive it captured my hand pushing the button to take the photo with the camera.
I would suggest you get some white foamboard, and make a walls of white around the sides of the stones, and then put something like a a white cloth that will let light through on the top of it.
I''m sure you''ve discovered that the more magnified the image is that the focus become a lot more difficult,plus the slightest bit of dust shows up if you have really good optics when taking the photos.
ALso if you''re having glare influence, try using one polarizing filter - that will reduce the glare, which is especially useful in examining the girdles too.
If you have access to an incandescent ring light, this too, can show you some very interesting results if you have white around the diamond area, and you can control the height of the lighting variably in very slight increments..
Rockdoc
You mentioned something about driving to the LA area.
I'd suggest contacting Cos Altobelli ( altobelli jewelers ) as he probably has the desktop and presentation ASET units, where you could see the images in that equipment which would be a far better image than the hand held one.
If you're in that area, perhaps he'd help you out.
You can get his contact info from the www.ags.org website. Tell him I sent you.
or as an alternative, maybe go to Vegas to the AGS as they'd probably be happy to show you the more advanced ASET equipment. Ask for the advanced equipment division
Rockdoc
I'd suggest contacting Cos Altobelli ( altobelli jewelers ) as he probably has the desktop and presentation ASET units, where you could see the images in that equipment which would be a far better image than the hand held one.
If you're in that area, perhaps he'd help you out.
You can get his contact info from the www.ags.org website. Tell him I sent you.
or as an alternative, maybe go to Vegas to the AGS as they'd probably be happy to show you the more advanced ASET equipment. Ask for the advanced equipment division
Rockdoc
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,280
So far I have surveyed 13 people here at work.
We have ceiling fluorescent lighting and no windows.
4 picked New Line ACA (painted)
4 Picked Classic ACA (non-painted)
5 Said they look too equal to pick one
I only asked, "Which do you like better?"
If they asked any questions I told them to make their pick first then I'll answer their questions.
Each person was alone so was not influenced by other answers
After making their selection I asked them, "Why?"
I wrote down their exact comments, which I'll post later.
Keep in mind they are the same clarity and color, but the Classic ACA is .748 ct and the New Line ACA (painted) is .713 ct.
The Classic's diameter averages 5.89 mm; the NL's diameter averages 5.84 mm.
We have ceiling fluorescent lighting and no windows.
4 picked New Line ACA (painted)
4 Picked Classic ACA (non-painted)
5 Said they look too equal to pick one
I only asked, "Which do you like better?"
If they asked any questions I told them to make their pick first then I'll answer their questions.
Each person was alone so was not influenced by other answers
After making their selection I asked them, "Why?"
I wrote down their exact comments, which I'll post later.
Keep in mind they are the same clarity and color, but the Classic ACA is .748 ct and the New Line ACA (painted) is .713 ct.
The Classic's diameter averages 5.89 mm; the NL's diameter averages 5.84 mm.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,628
I think I would have a very hard time distinguishing between the two types, they both look very beautiful. If I had to choose I''d probably choose the slightly larger one and be done with it! To me it reinforces you can''t go wrong with either one.
The next experiment would be to compare an ACA to an ideal cut expert selection of same size, see if an random group of people can distinguish those!
I have a hunch there may be aspects of a stone that may bother us when looking at a report that one may be more forgiving when actually looking at the stone in person, because you take the stone as a whole, and as long as the whole is pleasing, might not care if VS vs SI, H vs J, painted or unpainted
.
Good luck in choosing!
The next experiment would be to compare an ACA to an ideal cut expert selection of same size, see if an random group of people can distinguish those!
I have a hunch there may be aspects of a stone that may bother us when looking at a report that one may be more forgiving when actually looking at the stone in person, because you take the stone as a whole, and as long as the whole is pleasing, might not care if VS vs SI, H vs J, painted or unpainted
Good luck in choosing!
Mara
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 31,003
gypsy...it's funny you say that about comparing ACA to ES stones..when alj and i were there in tx the first time, we did just that and we couldn't even choose between what was ACA vs ES. brian has said that the naked consumer eye would probably not be able to pick out the nuances between many of their ES stones and their ACA brand. that's why for me they are *both* exceptional options and for me it just comes down to inventory, aka what is available in the range someone is looking for, as to what one could purchase.
Kenny:
I''m curious why you''re not going with another Solasfera ...
I believe GOG has some Solasfera stones in-house that are comparable in size, and there''s also a ''light carat'' Solasfera up on the GOG website.
I''m also curious as to whether you notice even slight differences between both ACA stones and your current Solasfera (which is gorgeous, BTW - - great setting, too).
You''ve raised some interesting issues on this thread. There are not many who would or could purchase 2 stones for comparative purposes (I would be tempted to keep them both)!
It will be interesting to see what you decide, but in the meantime, I hope you''ll take a moment to answer my questions.
By the way, congratulations on whatever it is you and Jose are celebrating.
I''m curious why you''re not going with another Solasfera ...
I believe GOG has some Solasfera stones in-house that are comparable in size, and there''s also a ''light carat'' Solasfera up on the GOG website.
I''m also curious as to whether you notice even slight differences between both ACA stones and your current Solasfera (which is gorgeous, BTW - - great setting, too).
You''ve raised some interesting issues on this thread. There are not many who would or could purchase 2 stones for comparative purposes (I would be tempted to keep them both)!
It will be interesting to see what you decide, but in the meantime, I hope you''ll take a moment to answer my questions.
By the way, congratulations on whatever it is you and Jose are celebrating.
Mara
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 31,003
I would imagine that Kenny would notice more than slight differences between his Solasfera and something like an ACA...to me the two are like apples and oranges due to the fact that the Solasfera has more facets...so it should have a different look than the typical RB.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,280
I love my Solasfera.
It is a light bucket.
I just wanted to also try an ACA with the standard number of facets this time.
I just had a taste for some Lobster to go with my Steak!
To compare the Solasfera to the ACA remember like Mara said, the Sol splits the circle up into 10 sections instead of 8.
There are more facets and no leakage.
The Sol seems to have a higher number of flashes of color than a 58-facet stone, but each flash is slightly smaller.
Again, neither is better.
I think pros are accoustomed to looking at 58-facet stones all their career so the others look too unusual for them to embrace.
As an newbie though I do not have such bias.
I think a lot of people could float the cost of a second stone on their credit card or borrow aginst a home equity line of credit for a few weeks.
3-weeks of interest and some shipping is a VERY small price to pay for the optimum side by side 10-day shopping experience.
BTW this evening I'm working on getting some better pics and thought I'd post this in the meantime.
Learning to photograph diamonds is really tough.
I have new respect for the pros.
I just got this light tent and some nice lights cool fluorescents bulbs balanced for daylight.
I tried using some prop wax behind the loose diamonds to adjust their angle more easily so the arrows would line up.
But you could easily see the wax in the reflections so I had to forget that and clean the stones again - ARG
Then I'm fighting the problem of focus at the correct enlargement and centering the stones all when the camera is at an angle.
I ended up using the bellows to rack focus.
That lets me move the whole camera closer to focus without going off axis and recomposing.
Arg!
Now I find my polarized filter doesn't fit on my macro lens.
Arrrrrrg again!
Photos to follow soon.
It is a light bucket.
I just wanted to also try an ACA with the standard number of facets this time.
I just had a taste for some Lobster to go with my Steak!
To compare the Solasfera to the ACA remember like Mara said, the Sol splits the circle up into 10 sections instead of 8.
There are more facets and no leakage.
The Sol seems to have a higher number of flashes of color than a 58-facet stone, but each flash is slightly smaller.
Again, neither is better.
I think pros are accoustomed to looking at 58-facet stones all their career so the others look too unusual for them to embrace.
As an newbie though I do not have such bias.
I think a lot of people could float the cost of a second stone on their credit card or borrow aginst a home equity line of credit for a few weeks.
3-weeks of interest and some shipping is a VERY small price to pay for the optimum side by side 10-day shopping experience.
BTW this evening I'm working on getting some better pics and thought I'd post this in the meantime.
Learning to photograph diamonds is really tough.
I have new respect for the pros.
I just got this light tent and some nice lights cool fluorescents bulbs balanced for daylight.
I tried using some prop wax behind the loose diamonds to adjust their angle more easily so the arrows would line up.
But you could easily see the wax in the reflections so I had to forget that and clean the stones again - ARG
Then I'm fighting the problem of focus at the correct enlargement and centering the stones all when the camera is at an angle.
I ended up using the bellows to rack focus.
That lets me move the whole camera closer to focus without going off axis and recomposing.
Arg!
Now I find my polarized filter doesn't fit on my macro lens.
Arrrrrrg again!
Photos to follow soon.
Kenny
Kudos on your setup.
WOW! You''ve really just about got a professional camera setup for taking photos of diamonds.
The tent you got is really big though. They do have some smaller ones out there.
If you want to try picking up the arrows, aim the lights towards the ceiling - so your lighting is indirect. You may have to lighten them up in photoship, but that should bring out the arrows if you aim the camera straight down over the stone with your setup. I think most of the sites use a sphere over the stone with a hole in the center.
What kind of camera are you using?
Kudos on your setup.
WOW! You''ve really just about got a professional camera setup for taking photos of diamonds.
The tent you got is really big though. They do have some smaller ones out there.
If you want to try picking up the arrows, aim the lights towards the ceiling - so your lighting is indirect. You may have to lighten them up in photoship, but that should bring out the arrows if you aim the camera straight down over the stone with your setup. I think most of the sites use a sphere over the stone with a hole in the center.
What kind of camera are you using?
Hi again Kenny
That is quite a set up you have for yourself.
Because diamond is so small.... the white walls of the smaller tent might brighten up things for you.
Also you may want to try putting the stone in the middle or the rear of the tent and try shining the light through the tent.
Different things work for different people. As you''re discovering, when you try to do larger images at a really close focus at high power the focus become incredibly sensitive.
Even more challenging is getting photos through the microscope at high power, then you learn how much of a pain in the posterior that dust can be.
Getting photo of the ASET images and internal strain are challenging too. I''ll post a few samples.
Rockdoc
Here''s some photos of strain.
That is quite a set up you have for yourself.
Because diamond is so small.... the white walls of the smaller tent might brighten up things for you.
Also you may want to try putting the stone in the middle or the rear of the tent and try shining the light through the tent.
Different things work for different people. As you''re discovering, when you try to do larger images at a really close focus at high power the focus become incredibly sensitive.
Even more challenging is getting photos through the microscope at high power, then you learn how much of a pain in the posterior that dust can be.
Getting photo of the ASET images and internal strain are challenging too. I''ll post a few samples.
Rockdoc
Here''s some photos of strain.
- Status
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024?
Did You Miss The Throwback Thursdays For April 2024? - 04/25
300x240.png)