JA''s True Hearts versus WF''s ACA

[reigndeerz]

Hi all,

Recently, I have been using PS''s diamond searches to look for a RB for my engagement ring, and in my attempt to find a stone with an AGS0 cut, JA and WF turned up the highest number of diamonds that with such ideal cuts.

However, it came to my notice, that there was a rather significant premium on WF''s ACA line, as compared to JA''s True Hearts line, which appeared rather odd to me, given that these are their respective signature lines. A comparison between 2 of such stones with almost identical specs can be seen below. (I personally did not take a look at the HCA or the dimensions, basing only the AGS 0 as my criteria for search)

JA''s True Hearts:
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1253697.asp
WF''s ACA:
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/Whiteflash-ACA-cut-diamond-2213217.htm

Both stones are about 0.51 ct, F, VS2, yet the price disparity was almost $350.

My question is this, what sets the ACA apart from the True Hearts that justifies this premium? Are the ACA cuts superior to that of the True Hearts? Given the disparity in price, why does WF seem to be the more popular choice over JA among PSers? (This perception comes from the numerous threads I have been browsing)

Sorry I had to ask, but I was inclined towards getting a loose stone from WF for their supreme quality, but JA''s price is making me take a second look here! Any opinions here would really be appreciated!

 

[stone-cold11]

If you look through more stones, you will notice that for WF''s ACA, the proportions only varies a little while JA''s H&A varies quite a lot. WF''s ACA is especially cut to the specs for WF while I think JA''s H&A are more of a happy accident kind of H&A, not bad just more difficult to find an exact twin to the stone.

 

[outatouch0]

the WF stone appears to have better crown and pavillion angles (which are very important to light performance) than the JA stone. They are similar but not identical. I am not at home so I can''t run it thru the HCA but I suspect the WF would score a bit better.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 10/29/2009 5:19:08 AM
Author: outatouch0
the WF stone appears to have better crown and pavillion angles (which are very important to light performance) than the JA stone. They are similar but not identical. I am not at home so I can''t run it thru the HCA but I suspect the WF would score a bit better.

Not really relevant when IS image is present.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 10/29/2009 4:51:14 AM
Author:reigndeerz
Hi all,

Recently, I have been using PS''s diamond searches to look for a RB for my engagement ring, and in my attempt to find a stone with an AGS0 cut, JA and WF turned up the highest number of diamonds that with such ideal cuts.

However, it came to my notice, that there was a rather significant premium on WF''s ACA line, as compared to JA''s True Hearts line, which appeared rather odd to me, given that these are their respective signature lines. A comparison between 2 of such stones with almost identical specs can be seen below. (I personally did not take a look at the HCA or the dimensions, basing only the AGS 0 as my criteria for search)

JA''s True Hearts:
http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1253697.asp
WF''s ACA:
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/Whiteflash-ACA-cut-diamond-2213217.htm

Both stones are about 0.51 ct, F, VS2, yet the price disparity was almost $350.

My question is this, what sets the ACA apart from the True Hearts that justifies this premium? Are the ACA cuts superior to that of the True Hearts? Given the disparity in price, why does WF seem to be the more popular choice over JA among PSers? (This perception comes from the numerous threads I have been browsing)

Sorry I had to ask, but I was inclined towards getting a loose stone from WF for their supreme quality, but JA''s price is making me take a second look here! Any opinions here would really be appreciated!

Also WF does have an upgrade policy which is more generous than JA''s at this time, plus extra images and tools are offered such as a photograph, ASET, Idealscope, hearts image and a Sarin report on all ACA''s, JA offer Idealscope and a hearts image.

Both are great vendors so it depends on what you value more and who has what you want when you want it! JA''s True Hearts proportions can vary a bit, WF''s ACA''s are cut to tighter proportions it would seem but there are great diamonds to be had from both lines.

Oh and by the way, if you have images and are dealing with this calibre of diamond, the HCA really isn''t needed.

 

[reigndeerz]

Date: 10/29/2009 5:34:31 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 10/29/2009 4:51:14 AM

Author:reigndeerz

Hi all,


Recently, I have been using PS''s diamond searches to look for a RB for my engagement ring, and in my attempt to find a stone with an AGS0 cut, JA and WF turned up the highest number of diamonds that with such ideal cuts.


However, it came to my notice, that there was a rather significant premium on WF''s ACA line, as compared to JA''s True Hearts line, which appeared rather odd to me, given that these are their respective signature lines. A comparison between 2 of such stones with almost identical specs can be seen below. (I personally did not take a look at the HCA or the dimensions, basing only the AGS 0 as my criteria for search)


JA''s True Hearts:

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Round-Diamond-1253697.asp

WF''s ACA:

http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/Whiteflash-ACA-cut-diamond-2213217.htm


Both stones are about 0.51 ct, F, VS2, yet the price disparity was almost $350.


My question is this, what sets the ACA apart from the True Hearts that justifies this premium? Are the ACA cuts superior to that of the True Hearts? Given the disparity in price, why does WF seem to be the more popular choice over JA among PSers? (This perception comes from the numerous threads I have been browsing)


Sorry I had to ask, but I was inclined towards getting a loose stone from WF for their supreme quality, but JA''s price is making me take a second look here! Any opinions here would really be appreciated!

Also WF does have an upgrade policy which is more generous than JA''s at this time, plus extra images and tools are offered such as a photograph, ASET, Idealscope, hearts image and a Sarin report on all ACA''s, JA offer Idealscope and a hearts image.


Both are great vendors so it depends on what you value more and who has what you want when you want it! JA''s True Hearts proportions can vary a bit, WF''s ACA''s are cut to tighter proportions it would seem but there are great diamonds to be had from both lines.


Oh and by the way, if you have images and are dealing with this calibre of diamond, the HCA really isn''t needed.

Am I right then to say that the premium placed on the ACAs boils down to the assurance of better proportions throughout, as well as the after sales services obtained?

To be honest, I am 99% sure that I will not be needing the upgrade policy, so paying a premium for that would be lost on me. However, I do want to ensure that the cut of the diamond is nothing short of excellent, so I guess I''ll have to be watching those JA diamonds that little bit closer!

 

[YoungPapa]

Date: 10/29/2009 5:07:58 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
If you look through more stones, you will notice that for WF''s ACA, the proportions only varies a little while JA''s H&A varies quite a lot. WF''s ACA is especially cut to the specs for WF while I think JA''s H&A are more of a happy accident kind of H&A, not bad just more difficult to find an exact twin to the stone.

Stone,

I have to take exception to this statement. We have about 850 TrueHearts diamonds on the website and I assure you - not a single one is a "happy accident". Every diamond is cut by master craftsmen who''s mandate is to produce nothing less than a perfect H&A diamond.

As to the statement that our proportions "vary a lot", I would point out that while we do allow a greater variety of crown/pavilion combinations than some other vendors, 97% of the diamonds in the TrueHearts program are accompanied by AGS Performance Based DQD''s and every one of those stones received AGS''s highest grade of "Ideal" for overall Cut and Light Performance.

All the best,

 

[stone-cold11]

Actually, I find that harder to swallow than a happy accident as I have seen some True Hearts with quite bad hearts image or leaky IS image, meaning the quality control is not there.

 

[outatouch0]

Date: 10/29/2009 5:41:11 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
Actually, I find that harder to swallow than a happy accident as I have seen some True Hearts with quite bad hearts image or leaky IS image, meaning the quality control is not there.

I''m not sure about "happy accident" but I agree with the premise of the point being made. A lot more searching and weeding out is required with JA. That is not to say great stones are not there to be had. I does however require more effort to find them.

 

[YoungPapa]

Date: 10/29/2009 5:41:11 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
Actually, I find that harder to swallow than a happy accident as I have seen some True Hearts with quite bad hearts image or leaky IS image, meaning the quality control is not there.

Stone,

We''re guilty of bad photographs much moreso than bad quality control. We are in the process of going back through the entire line and rephotographing all of those tilted stones, leaky IS''s and improper hearts. If the images don''t improve in the second round then the diamonds are being pulled from the program.

 

[stone-cold11]

Good to know.

 

[outatouch0]

Date: 10/29/2009 5:22:00 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 10/29/2009 5:19:08 AM
Author: outatouch0
the WF stone appears to have better crown and pavillion angles (which are very important to light performance) than the JA stone. They are similar but not identical. I am not at home so I can''t run it thru the HCA but I suspect the WF would score a bit better.

Not really relevant when IS image is present.

Yes, good point. I didn''t state my meaning very well there. I was feebly attempting to adress one aspect of the pricing issue.

I believe the price difference may be due to the WF stone being closer to "ideal" crown and pav angles and therefore priced higher than the other stone. Perhaps if both stones were priced by the same vendor they might be priced with similar differences?