goodoldgold vs. WF ACA

[nicktenny]

As I''ve been looking at pricescope venders, I''ve noticed that Jon''s selection at GOG is consistently similar as far as diamond percentages and angles and other cut characteristics to Whiteflash''s ACA diamonds. I know that the ACA''s are a brand cut and involve some things that may not be done with other cuts. That said, am I generalizing too much here, or would others say that most of the selection at goodoldgold is comparable to the ACA''s?

I''m still learning, so I could be way off here, but I would love to know what others think.

Thanks!

 

[nicktenny]

now that I look at more, it seems the consistancy between the two isn''t as common as I thought...guess it was just the ones I was looking at. either way, they both have beautiful diamonds!

 

[Darthkim]

I think if you were comparing diamonds with similar spec''s in clarity, color and cut, I think you''d find both of their performance stunning.

That being said, the biggest differentiators for me was the fact that GOG has most (if not all) of their diamonds in house, while WF offers a wider selection online. GOG can call in diamonds from their sources, but it might take a little longer.

What I liked about GOG was the amount of information they make available to the public about their diamonds. I can take all the time that I want, scrutinize any detail for any amount of time, and then begin to ask them questions when i need some assistance. I like that freedom.

You can''t go wrong with buying from WF or GOG. Both have excellent reputations here.

Good luck!

 

[honey22]

Are you comparing GOG H&A vs WF ACA, then I would say they are both really well cut stones, however, I do think (and I may be wrong) that Brian's criteria, especially for H&A patterning are a bit stricter.

That said, I think you are looking at the cream of the crop - a stone given the thumbs up by either Jon or Brian are going to be winners, and I dare say, hard to distinguish between the two.

Darthkim - WF keeps their range of ACA and ES stones in house. Stones from their virtual inventory need to be called in, which I believe is the same for GOG.

 

[icemyster]

Both GOG and WF offer a great selection of amazing diamonds...very comparable in quality. I have not personally worked with WF...I know GOG''s service is great...I think they might be slightly stronger with their policies. Either way you are going to get a great diamond!

 

[Ellen]

If you are comparing GOG H&A to ACA, it is a very fair comparison. WF strives for a certain C&P range on their ACA''s, while GOG carries more of a variety (different combos bring the same results). But in the end, they are all extremely well cut and beautiful. I own ACA studs, and my Ering upgrade is from GOG, there''s no difference. You can''t go wrong with either.

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

Both shops carry "brands" with H & A: GOG (Cut by Tolk) and WF (Cut Above). I have both and are phat (or is it fat?)? LOL

cheers--Sharon

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/2/2008 9:46:07 AM
Author: canuk-gal
HI:

Both shops carry ''brands'' with H & A: GOG (Cut by Tolk) and WF (Cut Above). I have both and are phat (or is it fat?)? LOL

cheers--Sharon

Add Isee2, which is what is in my Ering.

 

[Rhino]

Just a side note ... while we do feature the Isee2 and Tolkowsky branded Hearts & Arrows we don't put our personal seal of approval on all Isee2 and Tolkowsky diamonds. These (along with unbranded H&A's) must meet my personal criteria for what ultimately constitutes the GOG brand (those backed with our lifetime policies) and for which will be marketed under a more appealing name in the future.

Peace,

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/2/2008 4:17:15 PM
Author: Rhino
Just a side note ... while we do feature the Isee2 and Tolkowsky branded Hearts & Arrows we don''t put our personal seal of approval on all Isee2 and Tolkowsky diamonds. These (along with unbranded H&A''s) must meet my personal criteria for what ultimately constitutes the GOG brand (those backed with our lifetime policies) and for which will be marketed under a more appealing name in the future.

Peace,

Just so there''s no confusion Jon, you do back all the branded stones you carry, correct? In other words, the ones you don''t approve of, you don''t carry.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 10/2/2008 4:20:32 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/2/2008 4:17:15 PM
Author: Rhino
Just a side note ... while we do feature the Isee2 and Tolkowsky branded Hearts & Arrows we don''t put our personal seal of approval on all Isee2 and Tolkowsky diamonds. These (along with unbranded H&A''s) must meet my personal criteria for what ultimately constitutes the GOG brand (those backed with our lifetime policies) and for which will be marketed under a more appealing name in the future.

Peace,

Just so there''s no confusion Jon, you do back all the branded stones you carry, correct? In other words, the ones you don''t approve of, you don''t carry.

Correct. There''s actually 29 exams we''ll put each diamond through that relate to all aspects of the 4C''s. The easiest way to tell what we''ll back and what we won''t is by the policy offered with each diamond. If you see "Lifetime Policy" on that diamonds page then you know its a diamond we''re proud to feature and will always take back on a trade/buyback. I will not do that with diamonds I don''t necessarily want back.

 

[Ellen]

Thanks Jon, I just wanted newbies reading this to understand what you were saying. It could have been read another way.

 

[kcoursolle]

Both GOG and WF have excellent diamonds. They show similar specs because those specs are signs of excellent cuts. You''d have to compare diamonds on a case by case basis to say whether they are comparable to ACA''s.

 

[Rhino]

No prob Ellen.

And vice versa k.

Peace,

 

[GoodSoul]

I''ve been toggling between GOG''s H&A (unbranded/Tolk/Isee2) and WF ACA as well. From all that I''ve read, both have GREAT stones. I am working with both companies now as neither has the stone that I''m looking for (a very popular size/color/clarity as I was told) and both are providing great customer service (and lots of patience for this newbie).

Here''s my experience so far:

WF Their ACA is cut specially for them, they cannot just bring it in from other suppliers if you can''t find anything within their current inventory, you''ll just have to wait till their new ACA stock comes in. They can however find other stones for you from other sources but it''ll not be a ACA.

GOG They get their H&A from various regular suppliers (as confirmed by Jon) and if you can''t find a H&A within their stock, they can source it from their regular suppliers.

I would buy from either one in a heart beat... that is if the stone that matches my specs is available in the first place ...

I know patience is a virtue.. I just need to start cultivating it

 

[tiffanyornot]

I think that Whiteflash would be my choice over Good Old Gold for round brilliants if time was of the essence because I think Whiteflash has stricter standards as posters have mentioned above and their star system clearly lays out their grading system. I think that many Expert Selection stones at WhiteFlash would be characterized as "H&A" at Good Old Gold, in my opinion. It''s just easier for a consumer, I think, to ascertain the cut quality of diamonds at Whiteflash instead of having to look at all of the diagrams and figuring out if there are cleft hearts, Japanese hearts and arrows symmetry, etc.

In my opinion, Good Old Gold would be better served if they had a cut grade system or a score from good old gold on their rating of the stone. I think price alone is not enough of a signal to consumers regarding quality. And the holloway cut advisor cannot be used if under 2 anyways. Just because Jon picked the stone does not alone comfort me as there is a wide range of quality stones in his inventory including an I1 solasfera as I see today.

But if you are into research, and finding the perfect stone, then we pricescopers all probably can agree that it''s going to come down to only one diamond, so it makes possibly little sense to compare the average quality of a diamond in one company''s inventory versus another company. In fact, why limit the research to two internet vendors?

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 10/2/2008 9:23:19 PM
Author: tiffanyornot
I think that Whiteflash would be my choice over Good Old Gold for round brilliants if time was of the essence because I think Whiteflash has stricter standards

How so? Both use GIA and AGS labs to grade their stones. I guess those are their "standards". Am I missing something?

In my opinion, Good Old Gold would be better served if they had a cut grade system or a score from good old gold on their rating of the stone. Just because Jon picked the stone does not alone comfort me as there is a wide range of quality stones in his inventory including an I1 solasfera as I see today.

Really. Please search the PS databases for many long debated threads about "rating systems". Incidentally, that I1 stone you alluded to is graded, independently by GIA. Please, in specific, reiterate what your point about grading, is?

cheers--Sharon

 

[agc]

Date: 10/2/2008 9:23:19 PM
Author: tiffanyornot
I think that Whiteflash would be my choice over Good Old Gold for round brilliants if time was of the essence because I think Whiteflash has stricter standards as posters have mentioned above and their star system clearly lays out their grading system. I think that many Expert Selection stones at WhiteFlash would be characterized as ''H&A'' at Good Old Gold, in my opinion. It''s just easier for a consumer, I think, to ascertain the cut quality of diamonds at Whiteflash instead of having to look at all of the diagrams and figuring out if there are cleft hearts, Japanese hearts and arrows symmetry, etc.

In my opinion, Good Old Gold would be better served if they had a cut grade system or a score from good old gold on their rating of the stone. I think price alone is not enough of a signal to consumers regarding quality. And the holloway cut advisor cannot be used if under 2 anyways. Just because Jon picked the stone does not alone comfort me as there is a wide range of quality stones in his inventory including an I1 solasfera as I see today.

But if you are into research, and finding the perfect stone, then we pricescopers all probably can agree that it''s going to come down to only one diamond, so it makes possibly little sense to compare the average quality of a diamond in one company''s inventory versus another company. In fact, why limit the research to two internet vendors?

I would have to disagree with the above. Jon''s lifetime guarantee diamonds are 5 star quality. (and WF has wonderful diamonds that are also 5 star). He personally looks at many AGS000 and GIA Ex/Ex/Ex and turns most of these down for his inventory. He picks the best of the best and gives you all the data to prove it. (WF''s 4 star expert selection do not automatically equate to Jon''s super tight clefted hearts)

I think you are intimating that patterning equals performance when you mention WF''s stricter standards and this is inaccurate. Some WF "true H&A" are sometimes (note I said sometimes) not as optically symmetric/tight as some of Jon''s clefted H&A''s not to mention that Jon also sells "true H&A''s" like WF (look at the sarin and helium scans and look at the symmetry of arrows/hearts/V''s to prove this statement). If you will look at his diamonds you will see that all hearts are symmetric (clefted and non clefted) and all have tight optical symmetry will outstanding visual/light performance which is ultimately what you see.

All WF ACA''s do indeed follow the traditional Japanese standard of H&A''s patterning(and Brian should be commended for his commitment to uphold this standard) while Jon provides more "flavors" of optically tight diamonds.

Bottom line...I would not hesitate to buy a diamond from WF or GOG and both will sell you a stunning diamond as well as provide great customer service. If traditional Japanese H&A patterning is of prime importance than pick an WF ACA or a GOG non clefted H&A. If you are open to an equally precise cut diamond with a slightly different look/flavor then check out the clefted H&A''s.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 10/2/2008 10:52:12 PM
Author: agc

Date: 10/2/2008 9:23:19 PM
Author: tiffanyornot
I think that Whiteflash would be my choice over Good Old Gold for round brilliants if time was of the essence because I think Whiteflash has stricter standards as posters have mentioned above and their star system clearly lays out their grading system. I think that many Expert Selection stones at WhiteFlash would be characterized as ''H&A'' at Good Old Gold, in my opinion. It''s just easier for a consumer, I think, to ascertain the cut quality of diamonds at Whiteflash instead of having to look at all of the diagrams and figuring out if there are cleft hearts, Japanese hearts and arrows symmetry, etc.

In my opinion, Good Old Gold would be better served if they had a cut grade system or a score from good old gold on their rating of the stone. I think price alone is not enough of a signal to consumers regarding quality. And the holloway cut advisor cannot be used if under 2 anyways. Just because Jon picked the stone does not alone comfort me as there is a wide range of quality stones in his inventory including an I1 solasfera as I see today.

But if you are into research, and finding the perfect stone, then we pricescopers all probably can agree that it''s going to come down to only one diamond, so it makes possibly little sense to compare the average quality of a diamond in one company''s inventory versus another company. In fact, why limit the research to two internet vendors?

I would have to disagree with the above. Jon''s lifetime guarantee diamonds are 5 star quality. (and WF has wonderful diamonds that are also 5 star). He personally looks at many AGS000 and GIA Ex/Ex/Ex and turns most of these down for his inventory. He picks the best of the best and gives you all the data to prove it. (WF''s 4 star expert selection do not automatically equate to Jon''s super tight clefted hearts)

I think you are intimating that patterning equals performance when you mention WF''s stricter standards and this is inaccurate. Some WF ''true H&A'' are sometimes (note I said sometimes) not as optically symmetric/tight as some of Jon''s clefted H&A''s not to mention that Jon also sells ''true H&A''s'' like WF (look at the sarin and helium scans and look at the symmetry of arrows/hearts/V''s to prove this statement). If you will look at his diamonds you will see that all hearts are symmetric (clefted and non clefted) and all have tight optical symmetry will outstanding visual/light performance which is ultimately what you see.

All WF ACA''s do indeed follow the traditional Japanese standard of H&A''s patterning(and Brian should be commended for his commitment to uphold this standard) while Jon provides more ''flavors'' of optically tight diamonds.

Bottom line...I would not hesitate to buy a diamond from WF or GOG and both will sell you a stunning diamond as well as provide great customer service. If traditional Japanese H&A patterning is of prime importance than pick an WF ACA or a GOG non clefted H&A. If you are open to an equally precise cut diamond with a slightly different look/flavor then check out the clefted H&A''s.

Thanks, agc! You saved me from having to type a lot of that! I have stones from both WhiteFlash AND Good Old Gold, and it really gets under my skin when someone tries to say that one has better stones than the other! Good grief, they BOTH carry diamonds that are in something like the top 3% as far as cut quality goes!!!! BOTH are highly selective and want excellent performance on their in-house stones. Either one can call in virtual stones if someone wants. But I specifically shopped with those two BECAUSE they both select the finest cut stones for their in-house inventory and can pull out a stone and describe it to you if you ask. Both have lifetime upgrade policies which is important to me, too, just in case I ever change my mind (which I have been known to do!).

So bottom line, I certainly would recommend both GOG and WF. I bought from one when they had the size and color I wanted, and the next time I bought from the other when they had what I wanted.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/2/2008 9:23:19 PM
Author: tiffanyornot
I think that Whiteflash would be my choice over Good Old Gold for round brilliants if time was of the essence because I think Whiteflash has stricter standards as posters have mentioned above and their star system clearly lays out their grading system. I think that many Expert Selection stones at WhiteFlash would be characterized as ''H&A'' at Good Old Gold, in my opinion. It''s just easier for a consumer, I think, to ascertain the cut quality of diamonds at Whiteflash instead of having to look at all of the diagrams and figuring out if there are cleft hearts, Japanese hearts and arrows symmetry, etc.

In my opinion, Good Old Gold would be better served if they had a cut grade system or a score from good old gold on their rating of the stone. I think price alone is not enough of a signal to consumers regarding quality. And the holloway cut advisor cannot be used if under 2 anyways. Just because Jon picked the stone does not alone comfort me as there is a wide range of quality stones in his inventory including an I1 solasfera as I see today.

But if you are into research, and finding the perfect stone, then we pricescopers all probably can agree that it''s going to come down to only one diamond, so it makes possibly little sense to compare the average quality of a diamond in one company''s inventory versus another company. In fact, why limit the research to two internet vendors?

These remarks have nothing to do with cut quality, you are talking about ease of use here.

Yes, WF is strict about what makes the ACA line. And GOG is extremely strict about what makes it into their inventory. Saying that many ES would make H&A at GOG tells me you maybe haven''t studied their inventories much. Not only is it not true (lately, there would hardly be any ES that even came close, and, I''m not sure how you would know that anyway since WF does not show Heart pics on ES), but many of GOG''s stones are cut tighter than ACA''s. Now, that is not to say ACA''s aren''t extremely well cut stones, they are indeed. Both fall into like the top 1% of stones cut.

You also mentioned the I1 stone. To me, real quality is in the cut, not the clarity. Because that''s what ultimately makes the stone perform. You may judge differently. Neither of us are wrong, or right. (though I think most would take a well cut I1 over a mediocre cut VVS) Lower clarity just makes some stones more affordable, it doesn''t necessarily make them lower quality/bad. I like a vendor who carries a wide variety of color/clarity, that''s just giving options. And options are a good thing.

 

[KtIceRN]

Date: 10/3/2008 9:36:30 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/2/2008 9:23:19 PM
Author: tiffanyornot
I think that Whiteflash would be my choice over Good Old Gold for round brilliants if time was of the essence because I think Whiteflash has stricter standards as posters have mentioned above and their star system clearly lays out their grading system. I think that many Expert Selection stones at WhiteFlash would be characterized as ''H&A'' at Good Old Gold, in my opinion. It''s just easier for a consumer, I think, to ascertain the cut quality of diamonds at Whiteflash instead of having to look at all of the diagrams and figuring out if there are cleft hearts, Japanese hearts and arrows symmetry, etc.

In my opinion, Good Old Gold would be better served if they had a cut grade system or a score from good old gold on their rating of the stone. I think price alone is not enough of a signal to consumers regarding quality. And the holloway cut advisor cannot be used if under 2 anyways. Just because Jon picked the stone does not alone comfort me as there is a wide range of quality stones in his inventory including an I1 solasfera as I see today.

But if you are into research, and finding the perfect stone, then we pricescopers all probably can agree that it''s going to come down to only one diamond, so it makes possibly little sense to compare the average quality of a diamond in one company''s inventory versus another company. In fact, why limit the research to two internet vendors?

These remarks have nothing to do with cut quality, you are talking about ease of use here.

Yes, WF is strict about what makes the ACA line. And GOG is extremely strict about what makes it into their inventory. Saying that many ES would make H&A at GOG tells me you maybe haven''t studied their inventories much. Not only is it not true (lately, there would hardly be any ES that even came close, and, I''m not sure how you would know that anyway since WF does not show Heart pics on ES), but many of GOG''s stones are cut tighter than ACA''s. Now, that is not to say ACA''s aren''t extremely well cut stones, they are indeed. Both fall into like the top 1% of stones cut.

You also mentioned the I1 stone. To me, real quality is in the cut, not the clarity. Because that''s what ultimately makes the stone perform. You may judge differently. Neither of us are wrong, or right. (though I think most would take a well cut I1 over a mediocre cut VVS) Lower clarity just makes some stones more affordable, it doesn''t necessarily make them lower quality/bad. I like a vendor who carries a wide variety of color/clarity, that''s just giving options. And options are a good thing.

Ellen, I can agree that both ACA and GOG stones are indeed worthy of consideration and well-cut, but I can’t agree that many of GOG’s stones are more tightly cut than ACA’s. I’ve owned more than a dozen ACA stones, so I’m fairly confident in my belief that they are among the best cut available.

Perhaps I’m just not understanding what you mean by “tight”? Can you explain?

 

[NeverEndingUpgrade]

Date: 10/2/2008 9:23:19 PM
Author: tiffanyornot

In my opinion, Good Old Gold would be better served if they had a cut grade system or a score from good old gold on their rating of the stone. I think price alone is not enough of a signal to consumers regarding quality. And the holloway cut advisor cannot be used if under 2 anyways. Just because Jon picked the stone does not alone comfort me as there is a wide range of quality stones in his inventory including an I1 solasfera as I see today.

GOG does not need a cut grade system when they show so many photographs of the tools they use to rate the cut grade on each diamond. Besides, each diamond page clearly states whether the diamond is "Ideal" and "Hearts and Arrows" or if it is a traditional or antique cut.

GOG features I1 diamonds because they want to offer diamonds in a price range for customers. Hopefully the consumer has studied Jon''s extensive tutorials on clarity grades and know what an I1 is, should they consider buying one. I1''s aren''t the end of the world. I wore one for 14 years because that was all we could afford.

 

[Darthkim]

Date: 10/2/2008 4:17:15 PM
Author: Rhino
Just a side note ... while we do feature the Isee2 and Tolkowsky branded Hearts & Arrows we don''t put our personal seal of approval on all Isee2 and Tolkowsky diamonds. These (along with unbranded H&A''s) must meet my personal criteria for what ultimately constitutes the GOG brand (those backed with our lifetime policies) and for which will be marketed under a more appealing name in the future.

Peace,

Hi Jon,

Would you mind elaborating why some of the Isee2 or Tolkowsky didn''t meet your criteria? Just curious


Also, as a follow up to my earlier comment, yes, I did mean to point out that ACA and GOG online inventory are handpicked, but WF offers their virtual inventory online.

I have to admit, this is kind of an interesting topic, largely due to the normal PS Vendors vs other (xyz) threads.

 

[agc]

Date: 10/3/2008 12:39:51 PM
Author: KtIceRN

Date: 10/3/2008 9:36:30 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/2/2008 9:23:19 PM
Author: tiffanyornot
I think that Whiteflash would be my choice over Good Old Gold for round brilliants if time was of the essence because I think Whiteflash has stricter standards as posters have mentioned above and their star system clearly lays out their grading system. I think that many Expert Selection stones at WhiteFlash would be characterized as ''H&A'' at Good Old Gold, in my opinion. It''s just easier for a consumer, I think, to ascertain the cut quality of diamonds at Whiteflash instead of having to look at all of the diagrams and figuring out if there are cleft hearts, Japanese hearts and arrows symmetry, etc.

In my opinion, Good Old Gold would be better served if they had a cut grade system or a score from good old gold on their rating of the stone. I think price alone is not enough of a signal to consumers regarding quality. And the holloway cut advisor cannot be used if under 2 anyways. Just because Jon picked the stone does not alone comfort me as there is a wide range of quality stones in his inventory including an I1 solasfera as I see today.

But if you are into research, and finding the perfect stone, then we pricescopers all probably can agree that it''s going to come down to only one diamond, so it makes possibly little sense to compare the average quality of a diamond in one company''s inventory versus another company. In fact, why limit the research to two internet vendors?

These remarks have nothing to do with cut quality, you are talking about ease of use here.

Yes, WF is strict about what makes the ACA line. And GOG is extremely strict about what makes it into their inventory. Saying that many ES would make H&A at GOG tells me you maybe haven''t studied their inventories much. Not only is it not true (lately, there would hardly be any ES that even came close, and, I''m not sure how you would know that anyway since WF does not show Heart pics on ES), but many of GOG''s stones are cut tighter than ACA''s. Now, that is not to say ACA''s aren''t extremely well cut stones, they are indeed. Both fall into like the top 1% of stones cut.

You also mentioned the I1 stone. To me, real quality is in the cut, not the clarity. Because that''s what ultimately makes the stone perform. You may judge differently. Neither of us are wrong, or right. (though I think most would take a well cut I1 over a mediocre cut VVS) Lower clarity just makes some stones more affordable, it doesn''t necessarily make them lower quality/bad. I like a vendor who carries a wide variety of color/clarity, that''s just giving options. And options are a good thing.

Ellen, I can agree that both ACA and GOG stones are indeed worthy of consideration and well-cut, but I can’t agree that many of GOG’s stones are more tightly cut than ACA’s. I’ve owned more than a dozen ACA stones, so I’m fairly confident in my belief that they are among the best cut available.

Perhaps I’m just not understanding what you mean by “tight”? Can you explain?

If you look at the sarin/helium scans you will see that many of Jon''s handpicked diamonds are very tightly cut. Some are tighter than many ACA''s.(and some ACA are cut tighter) Look at the CA/PA deviations, crown height, azimuth shift and octonus theory numbers etc. These show the degree of optical symmetry along with the pictures of hearts and arrows and V''s showing degree of optical symmetry/tightness of cut. This does not mean that you can see the difference between .2 degree deviation and .35 deviation but Jon certainly has his share of very tightly cut diamonds with great CA/PA combos. As I said before, you can''t go wrong with WF or GOG.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/3/2008 12:39:51 PM
Author: KtIceRN

Ellen, I can agree that both ACA and GOG stones are indeed worthy of consideration and well-cut, but I can’t agree that many of GOG’s stones are more tightly cut than ACA’s. I’ve owned more than a dozen ACA stones, so I’m fairly confident in my belief that they are among the best cut available.

Perhaps I’m just not understanding what you mean by “tight”? Can you explain?

Kt, I''m talking about the variation in the crown and pavilion angles (which I threw in for cut geeks). On average, when looking at stones for consumers, I''ve seen stones from GOG that were definitely tighter. They carry a couple lines that cut incredibly tight stones. That is not to say that WF doesn''t cut a great stone, they do (which I said before). And I have seen some incredibly tight stones from them as well. I have had a few ACA''s in my possession as well (5), along with my Ering upgrade from GOG. My GOG stone is cut the tightest. So I feel I am qualified to make the statement/observation.

And to be honest, the reason I bought my studs from WF was because of statements I had read on here insinuating they might be the best. I wanted to see for myself if they lived up to that, and to be able to give an accurate assessment of both. Comparing them to my GOG stone, they are equally beautiful, truly. You''re right, ACA''s are some of the best cut, as are GOG''s. One isn''t better than the other, and I want newbies to know that. Because reading some of the posts I have here in the past, one might come away with a different impression.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 10/3/2008 12:53:36 PM
Author: Darthkim

I have to admit, this is kind of an interesting topic, largely due to the normal PS Vendors vs other (xyz) threads.

Ditto that.

Ellen's input is especially appreciated, too.

Whether you're more PC or Mac with respect to your style of looking at info...there's a confluence of data here. That is...(yikes...29 exams, Jonathan...you know...at Jiffy Lube I think there's about 129 points of review!)...whether the "tightness" would be required for Garry's standard or not, all experts here speak the same general lingo, and point to the same apparatus for considering how well cut a diamond is. So...you can feel assured that, when looking for quality, you've pulled out the right map.

 

[Ellen]

Thanks Ira.

 

[KtIceRN]

Date: 10/3/2008 1:31:01 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/3/2008 12:39:51 PM
Author: KtIceRN

Ellen, I can agree that both ACA and GOG stones are indeed worthy of consideration and well-cut, but I can’t agree that many of GOG’s stones are more tightly cut than ACA’s. I’ve owned more than a dozen ACA stones, so I’m fairly confident in my belief that they are among the best cut available.

Perhaps I’m just not understanding what you mean by “tight”? Can you explain?

Kt, I''m talking about the variation in the crown and pavilion angles (which I threw in for cut geeks). On average, when looking at stones for consumers, I''ve seen stones from GOG that were definitely tighter. They carry a couple lines that cut incredibly tight stones. That is not to say that WF doesn''t cut a great stone, they do (which I said before). And I have seen some incredibly tight stones from them as well. I have had a few ACA''s in my possession as well (5), along with my Ering upgrade from GOG. My GOG stone is cut the tightest. So I feel I am qualified to make the statement/observation.

And to be honest, the reason I bought my studs from WF was because of statements I had read on here insinuating they might be the best. I wanted to see for myself if they lived up to that, and to be able to give an accurate assessment of both. Comparing them to my GOG stone, they are equally beautiful, truly. You''re right, ACA''s are some of the best cut, as are GOG''s. One isn''t better than the other, and I want newbies to know that. Because reading some of the posts I have here in the past, one might come away with a different impression.

Ellen, As far as the tightness of the CA/PA’s I remember Brian telling me on one of my trips down to WF that a stone being too “tight” is not necessarily a good thing as it can lessen the amount of contrast. I had asked him about this, as I was concerned with the degree of variation of a stone I was looking at. I did get a chance to compare side-by-side stones of different tightness and feel that the tight stones were not necessarily the best stones of the bunch. More importantly than the degree of tightness, is the question: do the CA and PA make a good combo?
I agree that GOG has some great stones, as does WF. Yet I wouldn’t say the GOG stones are comparable to ACA’s. I say this simply for the fact that Brian has his criteria for what makes the ACA brand. This includes CA and PA combos, crown height, hearts images, grading report, and more. While Jon’s stones are beautiful, quite a few of them would not meet ACA standards. I believe that this is why Jon is coming up with a name and standards for his own brand of GOG stones. I would more likely compare most GOG stones to ES stones. Although, I think the old time PSers would agree, that the ES selection is not quite as great as it used to be. Meaning it used full of almost all near-miss ACA’s which didn’t make it for one reason or another.
So for the sake of apples to apples, in the question of GOG stones vs. ACA’s, I would say that they are not always comparable. Yes, sometimes they are, but as shown in the hearts thread, this is not often the case.

 

[Ellen]

Kt, that's fine. You have your opinion, I have mine.

I used my eyes, and found no difference. That's good enough for me.

 

[KtIceRN]

Date: 10/3/2008 3:49:25 PM
Author: Ellen
Kt, that''s fine. You have your opinion, I have mine.

I used my eyes, and found no difference. That''s good enough for me.

Ellen, I am glad you have seen both GOG stones and ACA''s and you are entilted to your opnion about them. I am just pointing out that by you saying “I bought ACAs and see NO DIFFERENCE” between them and the stone I bought from GOG….and then on the other hand, saying the GOG stone is ‘tighter’ than ACAs doesn’t make sense.

Implying that a ‘tighter’ set of numbers (for which there is no industry barometer or standard, by the way) somehow makes it a better cut stone when you already said there’s no visual difference is confusing.

Your direct experience, while valuable to your specific circumstances, doesn’t support a broad-based statement such as “GOG stones are tighter than ACAs.” Since GOG stones have so much variety (according to you), there’s no consistency of standard as there is with a brand. So, it’s possible that some perform as well, but it’s unlikely that they all do due to variances in hand-picked selection. Correct?