The A Cut Above Brand Premium

[Superidealist]

I've heard several posters recommend round ideal cut diamonds from Whiteflash's Expert Selection as particularly good values. The quality of these diamonds is such that they have even been referred to as "near A Cut Aboves" on this forum. Since these have been touted as being near in quality to diamonds in the A Cut Above line, it seems that they can be used to help determine the A Cut Above brand premium, that is, how much consumers must pay for the "A Cut Above" name.

Below is a list of every round ideal cut diamond in Whiteflash's Expert Selection for which there was a comparable A Cut Above diamond in Whiteflash's database. Diamonds were considered to match if they met the following criteria: they were of the same color and clarity, they were within one one-hundredth of a carat in weight, and the Expert Selection diamond had an Ideal-Scope image. If more than one A Cut Above diamond matched a given Expert Selection diamond, the one closest in listed carat weight was selected. The A Cut Above premium, shown to the right of each pair, was determined according to the following formula:

A Cut Above Premium = (A Cut Above Price - Expert Selection Price)/(Expert Selection Price) * 100%

ACA 0.402 D VS1 : ES 0.41 D VS1 : A Cut Above Premium = 17.7%
ACA 0.501 D SI1 : ES 0.50 D SI1 : A Cut Above Premium = 14.5%
ACA 0.710 E SI1 : ES 0.71 E SI1 : A Cut Above Premium = 20.7%
ACA 0.708 D SI1 : ES 0.70 D SI1 : A Cut Above Premium = 20.5%
ACA 1.200 J SI2 : ES 1.20 J SI2 : A Cut Above Premium = 13.8%
ACA 1.011 F SI1 : ES 1.01 F SI1 : A Cut Above Premium = 20.8%
ACA 1.011 F SI1 : ES 1.01 F SI1 : A Cut Above Premium = 20.8%
ACA 1.030 F SI1 : ES 1.03 F SI1 : A Cut Above Premium = 18.8%
ACA 1.151 G SI1 : ES 1.15 G SI1 : A Cut Above Premium = 20.2%
ACA 1.137 D SI1 : ES 1.13 D SI1 : A Cut Above Premium = 18.7%
ACA 1.198 F VS1 : ES 1.20 F VS1 : A Cut Above Premium = 21.2%

The average A Cut Above brand premium was 18.9%.

 

[Superidealist]

Here are the Ideal-Scope images for each pair in order (ACA left, ES right).

Pair 1:

Pair 2:

Pair 3:

Pair 4:

Pair 5:

Pair 6:

Pair 7:

Pair 8:

Pair 9:

Pair 10:

Pair 11:
(No Ideal-Scope image was available for the last A Cut Above listed)

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Excellent work, D. Riley. Thanks!

 

[strmrdr]

kewl thanks

 

[noobie]

Yes, very cool. Thanks Dave!

 

[sheckrock]

okay, I'm about to purchase a cut above diamond...so can you tell me what all this means?

For the most part, from what I recall, I'm pretty sure that the ACA stones performed much better than the ES stones on the HCA grade.

Hence the term "A Cut Above", right?

I can barely understand leakage, mostly because I hear that no leakage is not always the best thing. I see the paler and whiter spots in the scopes, but what are all these idealscopes supposed to show?


what is the evaluation?

 

[Regular Guy]

Thank you D Riley, and also, thank you Sheckrock.

The work is appreciated, but I agree, what is the intended message (unless it's as follows).

Having reviewed some of the options of this value line earlier, I know that many of these have perfectly good HCA scores (though not all), so that's not it. The cut above is, I believe, H&A, and so I think that's the premium being expressed.

D Riley, or others, is there any question about this?

 

[strmrdr]

Whiteflash's Expert Selection Round are stones that while still very good dont for one reason or another make the cut for the aca brand.
At times you can find a stone that for example has very good polish instead of ideal and Everything else about it is aca quality.
You can save some money over the aca and its just as awesome a diamond because you cant see the polish difference.


Id shop the expert selection before I looked for an aca in my range and might get lucky and save a few bucks.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Is it true that W.F will not post H&A pictures from their expert selection ?

 

[quaeritur]

vtigger- yes, at least that was my experience. They won't post pics and they will also not take them for a stone you are considering. I'm not sure I entirely understand the reason for that policy, it would have been helpful to me as a customer to obtain that information up front. I think the reasoning is that only the ACA line is "true" H&A, therefore they cannot take "H&A" pics of something that isn't "H&A". I'd have been perfectly satisfied for them to take pics of "pavilion view through colored filter" without calling it a "hearts" pic, but I was told they could not accommodate that request.

I still think WF is a good vendor, but personally, I'd be more likely to shop from a vendor that can provide all the pictures I want. OR buy the diamond, take my own pics, and send it back if it doesn't meet my criteria... but that gets to be a hassle!

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 8/9/2004 12:04:21 AM vtigger86 wrote:

Is it true that W.F will not post H&A pictures from their expert selection ? ----------------

hmmm thats news to me but I dont know could be...
The ideal scope images will tell you what you need to know about the arrows.

 

[Mara]

yes wf will not provide pix of the H&A of an ES stone because technically to them, an ES stone that is not branded with ACA is NOT a H&A stone even if it displays the arrows and hearts. to us, the average consumers however, the ES stones can represent an excellent deal if you can find one that has minimal light leakage, good HCA score, nice numbers, etc etc. some are out to save a buck and get the best product possible, others don't mind paying a premium for a brand. WF will provide IS images of the stones which could be enough, because as strm noted you can see the arrow pattern quite clearly, which would indicate very nice symmetry if not perfect.




I have an ES stone and to me it looks just as good as my husband's ACA stone, but for whatever reason my ES stone did not make the ACA cut. it was cheaper than a comparably spec'd ACA stone and was in a hard to find carat weight with the color and clarity I wanted, so I went for it. Similar to strm, I would search the ES area every time in hopes of a great deal.

 

[Dancing Fire]

----------------
On 8/9/2004 12:33:41 AM quaeritur wrote:

vtigger- yes, at least that was my experience. They won't post pics and they will also not take them for a stone you are considering. I'm not sure I entirely understand the reason for that policy, it would have been helpful to me as a customer to obtain that information up front. I think the reasoning is that only the ACA line is 'true' H&A, therefore they cannot take 'H&A' pics of something that isn't 'H&A'. I'd have been perfectly satisfied for them to take pics of 'pavilion view through colored filter' without calling it a 'hearts' pic, but I was told they could not accommodate that request.

I still think WF is a good vendor, but personally, I'd be more likely to shop from a vendor that can provide all the pictures I want. OR buy the diamond, take my own pics, and send it back if it doesn't meet my criteria... but that gets to be a hassle!

----------------

quaeritur
maybe some of their E.S. stone have the same type of quality h&a as the ACA so they don't want to show it ? who knows.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 8/8/2004 10:21:09 PM Regular Guy wrote:





The work is appreciated, but I agree, what is the intended message.....?

----------------

An excellent question. I'd be interested in the reply.

As a matter of observation, I note there are no other comparison besides price/carat/color/clarity. Nothing that compares the polish, the girdle, the spread, the symmetry, etc. Also, there is of course no way to compare H&A images. I'd wonder if some of these elements affect the dollar-for-dollar comparison....... (meaning that the price difference is perhaps only part *name* premium and perhaps part lesser elements.

Strm is right....one can't see the difference between VG and ID polish.....but that doesn't mean you won't still pay a premium to get ID polish. I don't really see this being much different than clarity......I can't see the diff between an IF stone and a VS2 stone, but that doesn't mean I can avoid paying the premium if I buy the IF stone. It's *technically* closer to perfection, and therefore more expensive.

The ACA stones conform to a very strict interpretation of what H&A is.....they consistently meet the most stringent standards of H&A. There are several other vendors who sell stones as H&As that wouldn't make the cut as an H&A under WF......things like one heart smaller than the other; the heart bleeding into the arrowhead with no distinct or clear separation.

To some, those minor distinctions are worth a premium......the same way that to some, the notion of perfection (or near perfection) in clarity/color is worth the premium.

 

[Superidealist]

Below is a summary of the minor distinctions mentioned (other than hearts and arrows images, of course). The entries marked in italics denote diamonds that some consumers may want to avoid.

Spread (in order listed):
ACA 4.81mm : ES 4.85mm
ACA 5.16mm : ES 5.18mm
ACA 5.72mm : ES 5.81mm
ACA 5.82mm : ES 5.77mm
ACA 6.92mm : ES 6.91mm
ACA 6.50mm : ES 6.55mm
ACA 6.50mm : ES 6.48mm
ACA 6.57mm : ES 6.58mm
ACA 6.83mm : ES 6.83mm
ACA 6.79mm : ES 6.79mm
ACA 6.86mm : ES 6.88mm

Polish/Symmetry (on Expert Selection diamonds, in order listed):
Excellent/Excellent
Excellent/Excellent
Excellent/Excellent
Excellent/Excellent
Excellent/Excellent
Excellent/Excellent
Excellent/Excellent
Excellent/Excellent
Excellent/Excellent
Excellent/Very Good

Girdle (in order listed):
ACA Thin to Medium : ES Thin to Medium
ACA Thin : ES Thin
ACA Thin to Medium : ES Thin to Medium
ACA Thin to Medium : ES Thin to Medium
ACA Thin : ES Thin
ACA Thin to Medium : ES Thin to Medium
ACA Thin to Medium : ES Thin to Slightly Thick
ACA Thin : ES Thin to Medium
ACA Thin : ES Very Thin to Slightly Thick
ACA Thin to Medium : ES Thin
ACA Thin to Medium : ES Medium to Slightly Thick

The message is this: Consumers who don't care if their diamonds meet "the most stringent standards" for hearts and arrows and who are willing to do a tiny bit of work can save around 15-20% by buying these Expert Selection diamonds rather than branded A Cut Above diamonds.

 

[Superidealist]

sheckrock wrote:
...what are all these idealscopes supposed to show?

I limited Expert Selection diamonds to those with Ideal-Scope images and included these images to show that these diamonds are cut with some degree of precision.

 

[noobie]

----------------
On 8/9/2004 9:53:49 AM Superidealist wrote:






The message is this: Consumers who don't care if their diamonds meet 'the most stringent standards' for hearts and arrows and who are willing to do a tiny bit of work can save around 15-20% by buying these Expert Selection diamonds rather than branded A Cut Above diamonds.
----------------

Yes, I would agree with that. I would even go further to say that I doubt that most people could tell the difference when mounted in normal use conditions. Some people want the extra "perfection" so to each their own. Me, for my next purchase, I'm looking to see how far I can stray from the "cherry proportions" and still have a stone that looks almost the same. I'm doing it for fun and treating it as a challenge

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/9/2004 9:53:49 AM Superidealist wrote:



The message is this: Consumers who don't care if their diamonds meet 'the most stringent standards' for hearts and arrows and who are willing to do a tiny bit of work can save around 15-20% by buying these Expert Selection diamonds rather than branded A Cut Above diamonds.----------------

I heard this loud and clear. But then with me, you are preaching to the choir.

 

[Superidealist]

noobie wrote:
Some people want the extra 'perfection' so to each their own.

I agree. In fact, I'm one of these people. I appreciate craftsmanship and am willing to pay a little extra for it. I know, though, that for many on Pricescope it's about squeezing the last drop of water from the sponge, getting the best possible deal. I'd often heard it said that A Cut Above and SUPERBcert didn't carry much of a brand premium. This seemed like a way to test that, at least with respect to A Cut Above.

 

[noobie]

Yes, I appreciate craftsmanship too, but I also want the best possible deal for it.

. Whether or not the 20% premium is "much" is really subjective. I would think the SG&A costs are higher to select the stones, but I would suspect overall margins to be as well.




I don't know, if I was in the market for an e-ring again and I wanted perfection, I'd probably pay the premium, or buy an 8*. Right now I'm just buying a whole bunch more stuff and if it's looks the same, I'd just rather have more stuff.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 8/9/2004 9:53:49 AM Superidealist wrote:

The message is this: Consumers who don't care if their diamonds meet 'the most stringent standards' for hearts and arrows and who are willing to do a tiny bit of work can save around 15-20% by buying these Expert Selection diamonds rather than branded A Cut Above diamonds.----------------

Completely agreed......the shopper who is looking for the best performance without paying for differences that aren't discernable to the unaided eye can save a good chunk of change this way.

Leonid once described cut to me this way: Getting the absolute best cut possible is like getting a D colored stone or an IF clarity. You may be able to take it down a bit without any visual sacrifice. Purists who like to buy the "paper" will still want the primo cut proportions or the D color, but it is possible to make trades on cut that won't be any visual sacrifice, similar to buying an F diamond instead of a D.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 8/9/2004 11:16:43 AM noobie wrote:


Yes, I appreciate craftsmanship too, but I also want the best possible deal for it. --

Yes, and to add: I don't consider perfection to be a sign of excellent craftsmanship in the bigger picture.

 

[Mara]

One other thing to note is that I know at times the ACA stones tend to have a bit of room for 'movement' in the price. The ES stones are seemingly priced with less room to move. If you are good at bargaining, you may be able to knock enough off the ACA price to make it attractive. If the premium was 10% rather than the average of 18% when all was said and done, it may be more appealing to some.

Before it has been noted that some vendors discount and others do not. WF is one of the ones that seemingly does, while I know some others just put their lowest foot forward originally and don't move at all in the purchase negotiations. One method could be construed as better sales tactics (aka better price out of the gate on a comparable stone) while another could be construed as better customer service (aka dropping the price down to meet a budget and gain a customer).

 

[noobie]

Interesting stats al. So the premium is anywhere from 0 to 10%.

In your comparison, it’s WF H&A stones to what other vendors are selling as H&A stones or their top stones.Whether or not GOGs, NiceIce’s, DCD or DI’s stones measure up to the WF ACA standard, I not going to judge.I’m certain that these vendor’s and some customer’s would make a case for their stones being just as good performers and having H&A patterns as good as ACAs.

Whether or not one believes that WF’s branding and selection criteria are worth the premium of up to 10% is really up to them.

The difference between ACA and ES is what one company calls it’s H&A and non H&A stones.For this comparison, (Super’s) it’s whether or not one wishes to pay a premium for the WF H&A standard, which arguably one can’t see, over it’s non H&A stones.

BTW, does anyone know if WF cuts their own ACA stones or if they have exclusive contracts with cutters or if they use selection criteria to sort and grade stones from various wholesalers?

 

[Superidealist]

aljdewey wrote:
You mentioned that you'd often heard it said that ACA/Superbcert didn't carry much of a brand premium (PQ has mentioned that several times; so has Mara) and that your project here seems not to support that notion. That's because you aren't comparing the ACA price to prices of other vendors whose stones aren't branded...and that's the context those comments were offered in.

You seem to presume to know that which you don't here. I had heard this mentioned by others and was not aware of PQ's or Mara's comments nor of the context in which they were offered.

First, a few corrections:

The correct percentages are as follows (to be consistent, I have rounded all to the nearest tenth):

Pair 1: 6.2%
Pair 2: 8.0%
Pair 3: 11.0% (not the stated 10%)
Pair 4: 4.7% (not the stated 4.5%)
Pair 5: 8.1% (not the stated 7.5%)
Pair 6: 8.3%
Pair 7: 1.6%

You seem to choose to round your results to the nearest tenth when they round up to the next higher unit but do not when they round down to the next lower unit. For example, 4.5% (actually 4.7%) rounds up to 5% and you chose to write 4.5%; 6.2% rounds down to 6% and you chose to write 6%. Coincidentally, in every such case, your choice of rounding tends to favor Whiteflash.

Also, in Pair 1, the Dirt Cheap Diamond is a Dirt Cheap Diamonds Signature Ideal, another branded diamond. You state that it is not a hearts and arrows diamond, but the description on its webpage states that it exhibits "a strong 'Hearts & Arrows' pattern".

Comparing prices among vendors ignores the policy and service differences. Some consumers may place a greater value on Good Old Gold's 30-day inspection period, while others may value Dirt Cheap Diamonds' three year buy back policy, while others value Whiteflash's 100% lifetime upgrade policy. Consumers have to decide for themselves how much each of these is worth to them.

Furthermore, the prices you quoted for the Whiteflash diamonds includes a discount for Pricescope users (whereas the others do not). This discount seems to be very near 5%. It has been said that some other vendors offer this, but I don't think I've heard anything official from any vendor other than Whiteflash. To complicate matters, some vendors list prices that include a bank wire transfer discount while others do not. Also, Good Old Gold's "broker's price" means that the diamond is drop shipped and fewer services are offered. (These last two points play in Whiteflash's favor, by the way, since Whiteflash's price does not include its bank wire transfer discount and includes their usual level of services offered.)

As you can see, fair comparison among vendors can be pretty complicated. That's why I chose to compare A Cut Aboves to Whiteflash's Expert Selection diamonds. Some Expert Selection diamonds are by nearly any measure almost identical to A Cut Above diamonds while being priced about 15-20% lower. As has been said here, some may think A Cut Above diamonds are worth this premium, others may not.

 

[aljdewey]

In your comparison, it’s WF H&A stones to what other vendors are selling as H&A stones or their top stones. Whether or not GOGs, NiceIce’s, DCD or DI’s stones measure up to the WF ACA standard, I not going to judge. I’m certain that these vendor’s and some customer’s would make a case for their stones being just as good performers and having H&A patterns as good as ACAs.

Right, Noob. This doesn't cover every post ever made on PS - I don't profess to know every single post made here, nor am I inclined to go trolling through them all. I'll leave that to those who seem enthralled with it.

However, from an anecdotal standpoing, I can tell you that a good number of times someone has said "branded stones aren't really much more expensive than unbranded ones", it's been in the context of a discussion between buying an unbranded stone from those vendors who don't have a "brand" and buying one that does carry a brand (such as ACA and SC.)

Whether or not one believes that WF’s branding and selection criteria are worth the premium of up to 10% is really up to them.

And that is a decision made on a case by case basis by each shopper. Some people will want it; others won't care. As long as people get what makes them happy, that's the goal.

 

[Mara]

WF cuts their own ACA stones, they have a factory in Antwerp that Brian visits something like once a month. I believe he is the one who chooses what makes the ACA cut and what does not at that point. Not ALL ES stones are going to be ACA rejects, some seem to have not-so-desirable numbers and IS images, so I believe they must get the ES stones from a variety of origins.

It is very hard to compare premiums from vendor to vendor, as some don't even call what they sell H&A because of stringent ideals while others brand everything H&A even when some may disagree. WF's ES selections is relatively new as was pointed out, and some of their ES stones in my opinion are better than some branded H&A's out there! For less $$.

Smart shopping is not just about cheapest...but rather a blend of price with quality. Quality for everyone means different things as well, such as D vs I color and SI vs VVS. I think an exceptionally cut H SI2 is a great steal while someone else would only look for an exceptionally cut D VS1 and not mind paying more. Same with the brand, some will pay for it for a perceived higher value, and others will not. WF reaches all areas of the market by offering ES stones, virtual stones, and ACA stones.

 

[Superidealist]

aljdewey wrote:
But, seeing that you like to argue for the sake of argument, be my guest to go ahead and round every single one of those figures UP a whole percentage point.

Forgive me if I prefer to be precise.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 8/9/2004 5:41:55 PM Superidealist wrote:

aljdewey wrote:
But, seeing that you like to argue for the sake of argument, be my guest to go ahead and round every single one of those figures UP a whole percentage point.

Forgive me if I prefer to be precise.----------------

Sure

.....as long as it's equally noted that I don't care about precision beyond a half-percentage point (unless we're going to talk about my possible mortgage....then I might be motivated to be less lazy.

)

 

[BrianTheCutter]

Superidealist is correct when he says there is a brand premium for "A Cut
Above" diamonds. But there has always been such a premium between ACA and
comparable "Expert Selection" stones.
After all, ACA diamonds have to meet a rigorous 16-point inspection for craftsmanship and performance that is as demanding as any we know.
Should an ACA candidate diamond pass muster on 15 out of those 16
check points, it will still be offered as part of our "Expert Selection" inventory.
This is why so many who post regularly on PriceScope report finding excellent values when shopping for these goods. 15 out of 16 isn't bad.
But it isn't quite ACA either—even if you can't see the difference with the
naked eye.
Nevertheless, the current 18.9% average price differential between "Cut Above" and "Expert Selection" diamonds is a bit wider than usual and needs some explanation.
Those of you who have been following diamond market trends know that there are extreme shortages of top-color and clarity diamonds specifically from 1 1/4 to 2 carats, especially among stones cut from what De Beers calls "collection" (i.e., top-quality) rough.
Growing scarcity and price increases in the rough has placed steady upward price pressure on the cost of polished goods.
Well-made diamonds have slowly but steadily increased in price weekly for the past few months.
So while we have left the prices of "Expert Selection" diamonds pretty much unchanged, we have had no choice but to follow the market when it comes to pricing those increasingly hard-to-find diamonds which we feel merit the
"A Cut Above" brand name.