Help needed deciding between WF and CBI

[blueMA]

I may retract that pint offer, incase it ends up over me

Na mate, I'd gladly share a pint with you though I'm more of a wine person.

No one denies that CBI is consistent in their quality and it's easy shopping there for your mind's assurance, but it's not unusual to find an equal performer from other top vendors out there as long as you know what you're looking for.

 

[MissGotRocks]

There are people that have had the exact same experience with other vendors too. I am quite sure that some of the other houses have specifications that they want from the cutters that they use too. CBI has a different business model as do any multiple businesses in varying markets but the end result can also be consistent quality. There is nothing wrong with defending your vendor and the product that you bought but doing that to the exclusion of others in the same business can be misleading. I am glad that you are happy with the diamond - and it is beautiful - but so am I and so is mine.

No pint for me but I'd be happy to share a glass of wine with you as well!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, I am feeling somewhat forced here to prove a point even though I like and respect both CBI and Whiteflash. I am getting weary of this argument and I have tried my best to say both are great and no one has some secret cut. But since some here continue to repeat that they believe CBI is somehow better, I will say is that I believe Whiteflash has as strict or stricter cut quality for their top, ACA line compared to other vendors, and that includes CBI. I've had these screen shots for awhile and really didn't want to post them, but CBI buyers continually insisting CBI is "the best" is making me quite weary.

I was looking at stones for someone weeks ago, and I was comparing a 2.5 WF ACA and a 2.5 ct CBI. I clicked on the little hearts images, and here's what I found. I have never seen an ACA with a hearts image like the CBI stone has, and that is because WF would put this stone in their expert selection line. I have not looked through every WF ACA or every CBI, but I have seen a couple more CBI stones that didn't have perfect hearts images (I had actually seen one CBI without perfect hearts before this one, but I thought it was a fluke at the time). Most CBI stones likely have a great hearts image, though. And I still respect the brand and vendors.





So, the wire price on the 2.5 H VS2 WF ACA stone is $34,293 and the price on the 2.5 H VS2 CBI is $36,540 (as of 4/9 when I too these screen shots). I can think of no reason at all that I'd pay more for the CBI stone than the WF stone. And in fact, if the prices were the exact same, I'd certainly still choose the WF stone because I think the images show it is the more precisely cut stone.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well that second image came out a little smaller than the other. Let's see if this is better.

 

[PintoBean]

Diamonds as organic material WILL vary even if the 4Cs align.

 

[KirstLWA]

@diamondseeker2006 can you let us know why the CBI image is different to the Whiteflash image and how this relates to performance. Would someone's eye see a difference in performance and what would this translate to, or are the differences so minimal that an eye wouldn't pick up on it?

I am interested as to what the experts see as to me they look pretty close to the same haha.

Excuse my ignorance, I'm just trying to learn.

Thanks so much.

 

[blueMA]

As far as I'm aware, CBI doesn't necessarily try to concentrate on the goal of producing perfect hearts and arrows image patterns, but rather make the cutting decisions based on performance goals. This was mentioned on one of the posts by John Pollard himself. If you're strictly an H&A fan and purchase diamonds by the IS images, then yes the clefts on the hearts would be rejected by vendors such as HOF, ACA and others who describe their diamonds as H&A. I'm sure the CBI diamond in question would perform admirably when viewed IRL, just as in many other less than perfect ideal proportioned diamonds out there.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

@blueMA If I am paying a price premium based on a stone being true H&A, I expect near-perfect images. Stones that have great performance but less than perfect hearts or say excellent on polish instead of ideal, for example, should be in a lower category and price range than the very top stones, such as WF has Expert Selection. I am sure that I wouldn't be able to tell many ES stones from ACA in normal viewing, but again, they should be priced differently based on the level of precision cut they are. I am quite sure the CBI stone I posted is beautiful in person.

I am just saying that it is ridiculous for people to put one brand above another when we are talking about vendors like CBI, WF, Victor Canera, and GOG (at least when Jon was there).

 

[Miki Moto]

May I ask the expert ACA and CBI PSers here...
Do either brands laser their logo on the diamond or is just the AGS number (I assume they at least do the number). I know HOF puts a HOF laser inscription on their stone along with a number. I am wondering if these two branded cuts do the same so it's recognized as an ACA or CBI diamond.

For what it's worth.. I know you experts here are probably feeling this topic has been hashed over and over again, but for me, a relative newbie.. I find it very enlightening and super helpful! So I say thanks everyone for all your detailed opinions!

 

[blueMA]

I am just saying that it is ridiculous for people to put one brand above another when we are talking about vendors like CBI, WF, Victor Canera, and GOG (at least when Jon was there).

I agree. I see so many people on PS choosing lower clarity grade or smaller sized diamonds on budget just to afford the stones branded as H&A (which Japanese started) while there are so many beautifully cut optically symmetrical diamonds out there. They're not always easy to find, but they're out there at great cost savings.

It comes down to clever marketing combined with the brand quality making it easy for shoppers to meet their highest expectation. "Crated by Infinity" diamonds are branded super-ideals just as in other branded H&As. One isn't necessarily better than another consistently. At a certain point, it becomes a mind clean thing, which is why some people would choose Flawless over VS stones at huge premiums although they could never see the difference to the naked eye.

 

[Gussie]

May I ask the expert ACA and CBI PSers here...
Do either brands laser their logo on the diamond or is just the AGS number (I assume they at least do the number). I know HOF puts a HOF laser inscription on their stone along with a number. I am wondering if these two branded cuts do the same so it's recognized as an ACA or CBI diamond.

For what it's worth.. I know you experts here are probably feeling this topic has been hashed over and over again, but for me, a relative newbie.. I find it very enlightening and super helpful! So I say thanks everyone for all your detailed opinions!

My ACA has the AGS cert number inscribed on it and the certificate itself has the ACA label.

 

[Lula]

With all due respect, DS, you are wrong about what those images show. You are correct that the images appear to show that the CBI diamond has an imperfect H&A pattern. But you are incorrect that the apparent imperfect H&A pattern is due to the diamond's cut. Rather, it's an artifact of the photography. Unlike many online diamond sellers, CBI does not employ a professional photographer. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is that most CBI stones are sold in jewelry stores; very few of them are sold online. This means that customers rely on H&A viewers to view the stones in real life, rather than relying on online images/photography. I can attest that every single CBI I have owned displays perfect H&A under the H&A viewer. I'm a repeat customer; I tend to ignore the online imagery because, again, CBI stones are consistent in quality and appearance from stone to stone. I know from previous experience that CBI stones are cut to perfection, including displaying perfect H&A. But there's no need to believe me, or the other CBI repeat customers on this forum. These links explain the discrepancies in the photography versus what is seen in real life, and also describe CBI's unique cutting process.

**edited by moderator, no other forum links please**

I must also add that I am shocked at the vitriol directed toward CBI and its repeat customers on this forum. I've been a member of this forum since 2009. Never in my time here have I seen such a concerted effort to discredit a vendor on this forum by a customer of another vendor. You are correct that it is not the vendors that are engaging in this behavior; from my experience, they have nothing but respect for each other. Please note that not one of the CBI customers on the several "comparison" threads have attacked the super ideals sold by other vendors. We have simply stated that we see a difference in cut, and that that difference is seen across stones in the brand. We have never said that the difference is "better" than the other super-ideals. It's just different -- and vive la difference.

I call a truce.

 

[blueMA]

A tilted hearts IS image would be more evident by the Vs.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

@Lula I have witnessed that exact same denigration time and again on dozens of threads over the years, "and it is making me quite weary". I think it is simply a predictable response to those at the top of any given field...it is a lonely place up there and the only ones that are happy you are there, are those that believe in you.

Years ago on these boards, super ideal cut stones were described by some in such a way that one would have thought they would literally glow on the finger - even in a completely darkened room. That was not true either. A diamond must be well cut AND have the right lighting environment in order to perform to optimum level.

Well, I have stated this exact thing multiple times and I stand by it, sans the darkened room. My rings do glow in almost any lighting situation I've been in, with the exception of direct overhead sunlight and darkness or near darkness. So sorry, but that's what I see!

Doesn't anyone think that the fact that one vendor will only use one superlative cutter for their stones, and that another vendor will source stones that fit within their chosen parameters from multiple cutters, make a huge difference in consistency?? If one vendor only gets say, 500 stones per year from their chosen exclusive cutter, while the other one can potentially get thousands of acceptable-to-them stones from various sources, doesn't anyone think that the cost of the rarer and potentially more carefully cut stone might be a bit higher than the other mass-produced stones? Why is it so far-fetched to think that one master cutting house that strives for consistent results with their proprietary cutting formulas, might have something different, and perhaps better, than the thousands of other master cutting houses that are mass-producing "ideal cuts"?

In my mind, comparing a vendor that only sells one brand of stones to another vendor that sells stones from multiple sources, is comparing apples to oranges....it's not the same playing field, and probably shouldn't even be compared to each other. That would be like comparing a Bugatti to a Prius. They're both automobiles, but.....

 

[TreeScientist]

I agree. I see so many people on PS choosing lower clarity grade or smaller sized diamonds on budget just to afford the stones branded as H&A (which Japanese started) while there are so many beautifully cut optically symmetrical diamonds out there. They're not always easy to find, but they're out there at great cost savings.

It comes down to clever marketing combined with the brand quality making it easy for shoppers to meet their highest expectation. "Crated by Infinity" diamonds are branded super-ideals just as in other branded H&As. One isn't necessarily better than another consistently. At a certain point, it becomes a mind clean thing, which is why some people would choose Flawless over VS stones at huge premiums although they could never see the difference to the naked eye.

I agree, and I really don't understand the focus on the brands on these boards in recent weeks. I don't rely on "brands" when considering any purchase that I make in life. With clothes, I don't buy a brand. I buy what fits me well and what looks good. Same goes for diamonds. I look at each diamond individually, both when making my own purchases and when making recommendations for others on this forum.

A well cut diamond is a well cut diamond. Be it a CBI, ACA, BDG, GOG, or even just a "non-branded" GIA stone that is cut to exacting proportions. I know I know. "*gasp* How could he compare a GIA XXX to a SuperIdeal or near-SuperIdeal branded stone?!?" I've seen plenty of well-cut non-branded stones listed on various online vendors that, judging from the IS and ASET images, would be damn-near identical to a branded stone. Fewer and farther between? Sure. But they're out there if you know what to look for. And selecting such a stone saves the premium on in-house vetted diamonds. Which may allow you to move up a color grade or two. Which may actually be noticeable depending on where on the color spectrum we're talking about.

Sure, there are plenty of other reasons to buy from SuperIdeal vendors, with customer support and upgrade policies being among the best reasons. But these "X brand is better than Y" blanket statements seem rather silly to me. Might some brands be more consistent than others? Sure. But when considering, say, two individual diamonds from different vendors, it doesn't matter about the entirety of the individual brands if the two diamonds in question are similarly cut.

All of these comparisons are similar to the "Hollister is better than Abercrombie" arguments among pre-teens (they're owned by the same company btw ).

Buy the stone, not the brand.

 

[Johnbt]

It's true, sometimes both sides in a bragging match end up getting laughed at.

And then there's "Abercrombie". The Limited bought it in 1988.

Those of a certain age remember the real Abercrombie & Fitch. Then the mere mention of it became the punchline for a sad joke.

www.chillicothenews.com/article/20141209/business/312099987

"Abercrombie sold his share of the company in 1907, enabling Fitch to achieve his goal of expanding the store’s general-retail offerings. A&F started a mail-order catalog and opened a 12-story location on Madison Avenue in New York City.

The department store had a shooting range and golf school in addition to sporting goods and apparel.(And a log cabin and fishing pond on the roof. JT)

In 1910, it became the first retail store to sell both men’s and women’s clothing.
In 1939, A&F branded itself “the greatest sporting goods store in the world.”"

"Abercrombie & Fitch was the official outfitter of Charles Lindbergh’s historic flight across the Atlantic in 1927. Ernest Hemingway and Teddy Roosevelt were also patrons of the store."

 

[blueMA]

All of these comparisons are similar to the "Hollister is better than Abercrombie" arguments among pre-teens (they're owned by the same company btw ).

Lol, the old days of my shopping at Tiffany and Cartier are over, and with so much information readily available, I know better than to chase a brand for the name's sake.