goodoldgold vs. WF ACA

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/3/2008 5:13:51 PM
Author: KtIceRN
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?

Not correct.
Some may perform differently as gog allows a wider range of personalities and styles than the ACA brand.
But to say that a diamond with a different personality that is in the top percentage of all round brilliants is worse is flat out wrong.

Which is better a fic a bic or a tic? Explain why one is better :}
The bic and fic may make it in Jon''s top grade if they are top performers while they would not make ACA.

The only fair statement is that Jon allows a wider range of personality in his top grade than ACA.

 

[agc]

Date: 10/3/2008 3:25:15 PM
Author: 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.

Comparing GOG diamonds to WF ES line is flat out wrong. The cut quality of the ES line is nowhere close to the GOG diamonds. Just because ACA''s have a strict patterning of Japanese standard hearts while Jon allows more varieties of hearts (which gives people visual variety that many like i.e. longer lgf''s and narrower arrows), Jon''s diamonds are cut just as well as the ACA''s(which don''t give the visual variety). Jon''s hearts clefted and non clefted are every bit as symmetric as ACA''s. ES diamonds do not have the high optical symmetry found in GOG diamonds period.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/3/2008 5:13:51 PM
Author: KtIceRN



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?

Kt, when I mentioned some GOG stones being cut tighter than ACA's (and I never stated it as all), I was trying to make the point that they are cut just as well as ACA's, and for cut geeks (which I should have mentioned in that post), they could be considered "better" by some. I never said they "were" better, and I never said that made them "perform" better. I'm sorry if my post was confusing.

And the only time I used the word "variety" was in reference to color and clarity. Not about cut.

Let me ask you the same question as tiffanyornot, how can you compare WF's ES to GOG's H&A? We never see heart pics for ES, how could you know that? And how can you say, from some pictures of hearts on GOG stones, that they won't perform as well? Because someone said so?


As I said before, I bought my studs from WF so I could see what all the talk was about. To hear some, one might get the impression they are the best. And while they ARE some of the best cut, I personally don't believe they are the only great cut stones available from our vendors. There are outstanding stones offered through a few. I want people reading here to know that (but I only talked about these two vendors as that is what the thread is about). That's why it was so important to me to find out for myself, instead of possibly just taking someones word for it. I have tremendous respect for Brian and WF, I mean that sincerely. But Brian's opinion on cutting does not mean he has the last word. There are other cutters in this world, cutting outstanding diamonds. I want the people on this board to know that.

 

[KtIceRN]

Date: 10/3/2008 5:31:44 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 10/3/2008 5:13:51 PM
Author: KtIceRN
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?

Not correct.
Some may perform differently as gog allows a wider range of personalities and styles than the ACA brand.
But to say that a diamond with a different personality that is in the top percentage of all round brilliants is worse is flat out wrong.

Which is better a fic a bic or a tic? Explain why one is better :}
The bic and fic may make it in Jon''s top grade if they are top performers while they would not make ACA.

The only fair statement is that Jon allows a wider range of personality in his top grade than ACA.

Storm, I am glad that we agree that one is not better than the other and "tightness" may only be relevant in a mind clean way, just like VVS clarity.

This whole GOG vs. WF,( tastes great / less filling ) vibe is really kinda silly. I don''t think it should be a contest between these two vendors as they both carry amazing stones. Which stone and vendor will be better for any buyer is up to them and their individual preferences. Thankfully we all have choices, so we can all be mind clean.

We also agree that stones that are in the top few percent, no matter what personality they have, are likely to please buyers.

 

[KtIceRN]

Date: 10/3/2008 6:41:49 PM
Author: agc

Date: 10/3/2008 3:25:15 PM
Author: 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.

Comparing GOG diamonds to WF ES line is flat out wrong. The cut quality of the ES line is nowhere close to the GOG diamonds. Just because ACA''s have a strict patterning of Japanese standard hearts while Jon allows more varieties of hearts (which gives people visual variety that many like i.e. longer lgf''s and narrower arrows), Jon''s diamonds are cut just as well as the ACA''s(which don''t give the visual variety). Jon''s hearts clefted and non clefted are every bit as symmetric as ACA''s. ES diamonds do not have the high optical symmetry found in GOG diamonds period.

I should clarify what I meant by comparing GOG to ES, I apologize for any misunderstanding. ACA are branded stones with strict parameters, where as GOG has more of a variety, like in the ES. I was not implying that GOG stones are not amazing or that they are not top performers, because they are. Jon has some really great stones and he is excellent at handpicking them. I will say however, that there are some ES stones that have high optical symmetry; I know I have had one myself; so to say that ES diamonds do not high optical symmetry is false. They may not all have it, but making a blanket statement as you did is wrong.

 

[Dancing Fire]

the only ACA i''ve seen is a 5 stone 1.27 tcw ring i bought for my wife. i wouldn''t mind owning a Isee2 or Tolkowsky branded Hearts & Arrows from GOG.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 10/3/2008 3:25:15 PM
Author: 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.

Kitcern, with all due respect I think your own experience is clouding your statements.
You say you have owned more than a dozen ACA's, yet have you ever owned/bought a GOG stone?
Tiffany is a brand - does this mean they will have better cut than GOG? not necessarily, and most of us know the opposite to be true.

We all have company and brand loyalty, and clearly yours lies with WF, which of course is fine. I think Ellen's comments are a fair assessment from someone who owns and has scrutinized product from both lines, without bias.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 10/3/2008 6:41:49 PM
Author: agc

Date: 10/3/2008 3:25:15 PM
Author: KtIceRN


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.

Comparing GOG diamonds to WF ES line is flat out wrong. The cut quality of the ES line is nowhere close to the GOG diamonds. Just because ACA''s have a strict patterning of Japanese standard hearts while Jon allows more varieties of hearts (which gives people visual variety that many like i.e. longer lgf''s and narrower arrows), Jon''s diamonds are cut just as well as the ACA''s(which don''t give the visual variety). Jon''s hearts clefted and non clefted are every bit as symmetric as ACA''s. ES diamonds do not have the high optical symmetry found in GOG diamonds period.

Exactly. Lets remember here that ES are diamonds are ones that missed out on the ACA label, whereas GOG''s "premium" diamonds are hand-picked and run through a gamut of exams - Jon explained his strictness on this on the first page of this thread.
Saying GOG stones are equivalent to ES is incorrect and misleading for others reading this who are trying to learn.

And I am coming from the POV of someone who has purchased from and loves both vendors equally, incase there is any question

 

[strmrdr]

Bottom line...
All diamonds should be compared/considered on a case by case basis no matter what brand is applied or who they are from.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/4/2008 4:57:19 AM
Author: arjunajane



Kitcern, with all due respect I think your own experience is clouding your statements.
You say you have owned more than a dozen ACA''s, yet have you ever owned/bought a GOG stone?
Tiffany is a brand - does this mean they will have better cut than GOG? not necessarily, and most of us know the opposite to be true.

We all have company and brand loyalty, and clearly yours lies with WF, which of course is fine. I think Ellen''s comments are a fair assessment from someone who owns and has scrutinized product from both lines, without bias.

And now my ultimate goal is to buy a stone from every single vendor.

*stay tuned*

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Let me just say that I have spent countless hours looking at numbers from both vendors. The Helium scan that GOG uses is supposedly more accurate than the Sarin scan that WF uses. In addition, GOG has the AGS light performance software that allows them to measure light performance on stones graded by GIA (or any other source for that matter).

Again, both have outstanding diamonds. Both are great vendors. Both have a passion for the finest cut diamonds. But it is incorrect to say that GOG''s H&A diamonds are not equal to ACA''s. He provides the proof right there on the web-page!!! Actually, he provides more information than any other vendor!

I have stones from BOTH, 2 ACA''s and a Towlkowsky cut from GOG. If I thought one had superior stones to the other I would be buying only from one vendor. I would also not hesitate to buy an Infinity diamond which John P now represents, and Wink is a vendor that carries those. Those seem to have a more limited supply so that is why I haven''t had a contender from them yet.

I surely wish we didn''t have to keep going through this over and over.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/4/2008 10:15:53 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Let me just say that I have spent countless hours looking at numbers from both vendors. The Helium scan that GOG uses is supposedly more accurate than the Sarin scan that WF uses. In addition, GOG has the AGS light performance software that allows them to measure light performance on stones graded by GIA (or any other source for that matter).

Again, both have outstanding diamonds. Both are great vendors. Both have a passion for the finest cut diamonds. But it is incorrect to say that GOG''s H&A diamonds are not equal to ACA''s. He provides the proof right there on the web-page!!! Actually, he provides more information than any other vendor!

I have stones from BOTH, 2 ACA''s and a Towlkowsky cut from GOG. If I thought one had superior stones to the other I would be buying only from one vendor. I would also not hesitate to buy an Infinity diamond which John P now represents, and Wink is a vendor that carries those. Those seem to have a more limited supply so that is why I haven''t had a contender from them yet.

I surely wish we didn''t have to keep going through this over and over.

Me too.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/4/2008 9:12:53 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/4/2008 4:57:19 AM
Author: arjunajane




Kitcern, with all due respect I think your own experience is clouding your statements.
You say you have owned more than a dozen ACA''s, yet have you ever owned/bought a GOG stone?
Tiffany is a brand - does this mean they will have better cut than GOG? not necessarily, and most of us know the opposite to be true.

We all have company and brand loyalty, and clearly yours lies with WF, which of course is fine. I think Ellen''s comments are a fair assessment from someone who owns and has scrutinized product from both lines, without bias.

And now my ultimate goal is to buy a stone from every single vendor.

*stay tuned*

one from every vendor in the U.S. ? sooo....you''ll end up with something like 35,000 stones ??

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 10/4/2008 9:12:53 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/4/2008 4:57:19 AM
Author: arjunajane





Kitcern, with all due respect I think your own experience is clouding your statements.
You say you have owned more than a dozen ACA's, yet have you ever owned/bought a GOG stone?
Tiffany is a brand - does this mean they will have better cut than GOG? not necessarily, and most of us know the opposite to be true.

We all have company and brand loyalty, and clearly yours lies with WF, which of course is fine. I think Ellen's comments are a fair assessment from someone who owns and has scrutinized product from both lines, without bias.

And now my ultimate goal is to buy a stone from every single vendor.

*stay tuned*

and one in every shape, don't forget !

I agree, there is no need to keep doing the "versus" thing, they are both AAA+ vendors that we are all lucky to be privy to, imho.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 10/5/2008 12:36:47 AM
Author: arjunajane

Date: 10/4/2008 9:12:53 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 10/4/2008 4:57:19 AM
Author: arjunajane






Kitcern, with all due respect I think your own experience is clouding your statements.
You say you have owned more than a dozen ACA''s, yet have you ever owned/bought a GOG stone?
Tiffany is a brand - does this mean they will have better cut than GOG? not necessarily, and most of us know the opposite to be true.

We all have company and brand loyalty, and clearly yours lies with WF, which of course is fine. I think Ellen''s comments are a fair assessment from someone who owns and has scrutinized product from both lines, without bias.

And now my ultimate goal is to buy a stone from every single vendor.

*stay tuned*

and one in every shape, don''t forget !

I agree, there is no need to keep doing the ''versus'' thing, they are both AAA+ vendors that we are all lucky to be privy to, imho.

Well said.