WF ACA vs GOG for Hearts and Arrows

[spike13]

Is there a difference between the branded A Cut Above (ACA) hearts and arrows at WhiteFlash compared to the stones that are Hearts and arrows at Good Old Good? Which one is generally considered superior?

 

[Kaleigh]

No clear winner, they are both amazing, IMHO.

 

[chrono]

None, both sell top H&A stones - it''s a matter of who has exactly what you want at the time you need it.

 

[Ellen]

Ditto the ladies.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Have bought from both...both are excellent and carry top quality stones. I watched both inventories the two times I was looking for stones and bought when the one I wanted appeared.

 

[spike13]

Thanks for your replies. I keep trying to not get overly hung up on minute details I know no human can detect, but I do see a slight price difference. ACA is a wee bit higher - I assume because it''s a branded cut. Not high enough to really be a deal breaker, but I was curious if it was in fact superior.

 

[spike13]

One thing I still wonder about is that the stones on the GOG site almost always have a slight split in the the cleft of the hearts as seen in this image.

According to:

https://www.pricescope.com/hearts_grading_hearts.asp

It says this is a big no no. Is this something I should be worried about? At what point does this impact the stone''s appearance?

 

[spike13]

And here''s a pic from the WF site:

 

[JulieN]

i estimate that cleft to be from just under 8% to maybe 10%. however, to call it non H&A requires two hearts to be split more than 8%, and I don't think any of the others do.

it doesn't actually affect the stone's performance.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/29/2008 3:52:56 AM
Author: spike13
One thing I still wonder about is that the stones on the GOG site almost always have a slight split in the the cleft of the hearts as seen in this image.

According to:

https://www.pricescope.com/hearts_grading_hearts.asp

It says this is a big no no. Is this something I should be worried about? At what point does this impact the stone''s appearance?

You are best asking Jon about this, he will be happy to advise you.

 

[JulieN]

also, the photography is different. which makes it hard to compare. for example, you can see different shades in the hearts on the GOG stone, but the WF stone, the hearts are just white.

 

[Ellen]

At this point you are splitting split hairs.

 

[meffaman]

That looks like a photography issue to me. The GOG photos look more 3D than WF''s in that GOG''s you can see more of a "peak" where the hearts slope left and right, where WF''s look more flat to me. I''m no expert, but I''m guessing the middle of the hearts is where 2 angles meet.

I just bought 3 stones from GOG, 2 of which are from one cutter and the other a Tolkowsky, and all 3 have hearts that show that. I''d bet WF''s would show some of that too if photographed differently.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3785/

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/3786/

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4206/

 

[Lord Summerisle]

Date: 5/29/2008 3:52:56 AM
Author: spike13
One thing I still wonder about is that the stones on the GOG site almost always have a slight split in the the cleft of the hearts as seen in this image.

While Rhino is better qualified to explain than i...

...studying the picture from GOG... there is also a slight bending on the points of the Hearts at the Culet - suggesting that the diamonds is a smigin off the center point of the camera lens... giving that minor distortion in the hearts image, and as such it is nothing to worry about.

 

[meffaman]

Hmmm, just read that hearts tutorial.

Looks like there is something to that after all. I''m not worried about the stones I bought though (haven''t arrived yet).

 

[strmrdr]

generally 6 of one half dozen of the other.

1: different h&a scopes and camera set up give slightly different images.
2: clefts are caused by lgf% and as long as the lgf% matches the other parameters its not bad.

For example the AGS cutting guidelines for ags0 are based on a 80% lgf% which will show clefts so its not a bad thing.
The PS h&a page is outdated and is based on one vendors opinion.

 

[strmrdr]

Another example is the default modern tolk that DiamCalc uses to compare to all other stones

 

[strmrdr]

picking a random recomended ags0 combination from the cutting guidelines...

 

[strmrdr]

same combo as above with a lgf% mismatch where the lgf% don't match the angle combo.
Where other combos that look like this might be just fine.

 

[strmrdr]

So the bottom line is you cant judge the proper lgf% from the clefts in the hearts.

 

[Rhino]

Right on.

My .02c on this.

While lower girdle facet length can and will affect how the hearts will show up, the hearts pattern can appear different depending on the photographic setup.

Regarding clefts in the hearts, that is something that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the light performance of the diamond. I have in fact had a business of diamonds purposely cut with longer lower girdle facets that produce obvious clefts in the hearts pattern. Attached is an example of a 1.01ct F VS1. Face up this diamond is as amazing as any H&A that we have with shorter lower girdles. The precision to which it is cut is not only demonstrated by the consistency of the pattern through an H&A viewer but can also be examined and confirmed via a Helium Report which shows all variances of every facet set on the diamond. It''s optical symmetry, precision and light performance is not compromised by this fact one iota. If the optics were compromised in the least we would cease to feature such a product. Hope that helps.

Peace,

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 5/29/2008 10:33:52 AM
Author: strmrdr
The PS h&a page is outdated and is based on one vendors opinion.

Yes, it represents "one vendor's opinion". That opinion also happens to come from THE recognized authority within the industry for his strict grading of Hearts & Arrows. (Those interested can learn more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Gavin)

Brian's H&A grading system was presented at the First International Diamond Cut Conference in Moscow in 2004 as a suggested industry benchmark for H&A grading. His 'opinion' sets the standard, and many credentialed appraisers--including Dave Atlas and Rich Sherwood--have adopted Brian's H&A grading criteria as their own.

If I had to rely on "just one opinion" about H&A, I'd certainly want it to come from the person who actually sets the standard.

Whether or not the PS page is outdated, the H&A criteria is not. Brian's H&A criteria remain as stringent as they've been since inception.

To the original poster: None of the above is to say that every diamond has to be an H&A to be beautiful.....they don't. As several pointed out in this thread, H&A isn't required for optimal light performance. I own several beautiful diamonds that aren't H&A; I own some that are (by Brian's standard). Some people don't need such a precise level of optical symmetry; others may desire it to achieve their version of 'mind-clean'. Consumers need to balance all their desired preferences (color, clarity, H&A, carat) and determine how to prioritize those within their given budgets.

 

[Rhino]

Good point Allison. I think it would be fair to say that most here can appreciate Brian''s strictness. While I am not familiar with the intricacies of his system I have a question.

As you look at the graphic below, is a person led to believe that one of these diamonds is inferior in any way (precision of cut or optical properties) to the other? Curious.

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

oops. The graphic.

 

[WinkHPD]

Jon is correct that the clefts are a result of the length of the lower girdle facets. Some people like them longer, some shorter. Sol long as the cleft is the result of the length of the lower girdles and not of a lack of symmetry then it should not be considered a problem.

Both AGS and GIA have a range of lower girdle facet ranges that are acceptable to their grading systems, and the appearance of the stones will vary a little. Which appearance you like, and you can like both very easily, is totally a matter of personal taste.

Wink at Vegas