WF''s ACA criteria not being met?

[echelon6]

Hi all

I''ve been looking at WF''s ACA collection and noticed that nearly ALL their stones (in the 1.5+ct range at least - that''s what I''ve been shopping around for) have LGF% < 76-77%.

But according to their own self-set criteria for ACAs, LGF% are bound between 76-80%. Out of around 10 ACAs they have in my carat range, only one has LGF at 78%, none above that, and probably 70% of their ACAs have LGF <= 75%

Is there a reason why it seems that WF intentionally stocks ACAs with low LGF%s? Or have all the high LGF tight stones been sold already? (I doubt that)

And more intriguingly, WF seems to be in breach of its self set criterial of 76-80% for stones to qualify as ACA, since many of their stones have LGF%s of 74-76%

For example:
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-231904.htm - 76
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-179725.htm - 75.5
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-179720.htm - 75.1
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-231904.htm - 76
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-312247.htm - 76
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-312245.htm - 75

And those were the first 6 that came up in the search...

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Hey, I am failing to find a link with that data you presented. You mind putting up a link so we can see it from the actual source?

Also, since I am posting (though I had orginally intended to stay out of this one) I will put up a few uninformed comments. One is that there has been alot of discussion in the not too distant past about a change in ACA diamonds. There are the "old line classic" and the "new line" if you run a search you will find out information on them. The general gist that I have picked up is that the new line has less leakage around the girdle mains, etc, and broader flashes of light--which could well translate into shorter LGF. Thus it may be that the data you are presenting is somewhat outdated, but I will be checking back to find out myself.

Also, I hope you sent an email to WF about this, as if there is an error on the website or somewhere else it would probably be courteous to let them know and give them a chance to explain well before you start posting on any forums--at least in my mind.

 

[echelon6]

The data is found here: https://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds_info/t/all_about.aspx?articleid=299&zoneid=21

I do plan to give WF a call on monday, but seeing as its the weekend, I''m just anxious to get some quick answers if someone knows it.

Also I dont think the issue is relevant to the old ACA vs newline ACAs, since its common consensus amongst PSers that 78-82 LGF is the sweetspot. I agree there''s nothing technically wrong with 75-78, which is what WF stocks, but I just want to know why they don''t stock any between 78-82 for their ACAs. Since that''s the issue, I think any expert here can answer me.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 7/15/2007 2:04:22 AM
Author: echelon6
The data is found here: https://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds_info/t/all_about.aspx?articleid=299&zoneid=21

since its common consensus amongst PSers that 78-82 LGF is the sweetspot.

No offense but, how exactly did you deduce that. My preference from the few I have seen and known, and just from general observations of broader larger flashes and more small pinpoint types is that it would be 77 and lower, and from what I remembering reading here on PS is given a choice between a lower and higher number LGF they usually are more attracted to the lower, but I will have to search out those examples before I can really make that claim 100%.

and we all know that strmdr likes the higher LGF, but I certainly haven't seen anything to indicate that that is a consensus amongst Psers, even amongst professionals, and I have been doing a fair amount of reading.

I see that you were the one involved in the other thread on low LGF, but remember that the two people who really voiced an opinion there was 1: strmDR, who is a self proclaimed small pinpoint nut, often criticized for his fanaticism and love of such appearance, though there is nothing wrong with it.
2: some guy named junior35 with no mention of his trade experience and is new to PS as far as I can tell. Also important, be personally prefers 77, though he gives an unsupported claim that most professionals back 80+, which may or may not be the case, I am sure it depends on which group or professionals you are talking about.

then the only other commenter was the only female who voiced a love of shorter LGF
Trends such as that tend to be the case when reviewing most opinions on PS, but in truth most people don't have any clue, though with shorter LGF it should be more visible from a distance, which is def preferable in my opinion just so I can watch it while I am out with my woman. But Just this last week I went to a jewelery store and was comparing the fire of mine to one of his and asking what the LGF was since it wasn't listed on the report, he was flabbergasted and had no idea...



I went ahead and substituted in the actual link rather than just the text.

Finally, you are right that there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the LGF and new Vs old, though that would have explained the apparently outdated criteria.

 

[strmrdr]

edit: even not touching the first 3 posts posting in this thread isnt a good idea.
Im out.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 7/15/2007 2:35:55 AM
Author: strmrdr
edit: even not touching the first 3 posts posting in this thread isnt a good idea.

Im out.

sorry if i said something wrong, I am exhausted about now. You should step in I think, though you did in the other thread I believe

I am handing the floor over now, as I have probably embarrassed myself somehow.

 

[echelon6]

Why is there a reluctance to comment when stones get specific (ACA in this case)? I think as long as discussion remains in good faith, opinions should be shared without reservation?

Anyway, still wanting to know why ACA stones all fall below the LGF 76% range...

 

[Maisie]

I think you should speak to someone at Whiteflash. I have found there to be too many differing opinons on PS about the figures of a diamond. I believe that you should decide what YOU like and go from there. I was advised by Brian at Whiteflash to view a diamond before deciding if its for me or not. You can go round and round with the numbers of a stone but without seeing it how would you know if you like it?

I met my husband online. I chatted to him for a while before I met up with him in person. Sure I liked his personality - but without seeing him in the flesh so to speak - how would I know if I would fall in love with him? I think its the same with a diamond. Meet up and see how you get along!

 

[pyramid]

Date: 7/15/2007 2:04:22 AM
Author: echelon6
since its common consensus amongst PSers that 78-82 LGF is the sweetspot. I agree there's nothing technically wrong with 75-78, which is what WF stocks, but I just want to know why they don't stock any between 78-82 for their ACAs. Since that's the issue, I think any expert here can answer me.

Hmm I was saying and have edited out my post that LGF% was only being discussed recently but after doing a search I see it has been a topic for years, seems I didn't read much about it then.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/15/2007 11:21:25 AM
Author: Pyramid


I am just a consumer and have been here for years. As far as I remember there was never any talk about LGF% until maybe 6 months ago when Storm pointed out he preferred them longer and I remember a post with Storm and John from Whiteflash about this. I have never seen any common consensus amongst PSers that 78-82 LGF is the sweetspot. Ofcourse you have to remember that lots and lots of PSers are not really into the technical stuff here, I am interested in it, but many just want the beautiful diamond and to know it is ideal. Therefore there are only a few who may have mentioned LGF but I don''t recall any of the vendors or experts really saying one was better than another. I do know that Storm has discussed this many times and it is mostly that which I remember when I hear LGF%. Maybe I am wrong because lately it is becoming more a topic and maybe I have missed reading some of them though.

LGF% has been talked about as long as I have been here.
I think it was the second or third day I was here that I asked what do these facets do and how do they affect the diamond.
I have been looking into that answer ever since.
77-80 is the common ground that many experts here have.
Its where Paul, Brian and Jon and others overlap on their opinions of whats the right lgf% for ideal cut diamonds.

 

[pyramid]

Yes Storm I see I found that out at the same time you were posting.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/15/2007 2:48:42 AM
Author: echelon6
Why is there a reluctance to comment when stones get specific (ACA in this case)? I think as long as discussion remains in good faith, opinions should be shared without reservation?

Anyway, still wanting to know why ACA stones all fall below the LGF 76% range...

mainly because only Brian and maybe John can answer your question.
And while I enjoy going round and round with them from time to time on here I do have a great deal of respect for them both.
Since I keep getting brought up I decided to go ahead and post but to get the answers your looking for in the first post I don''t have em and am not going to speculate.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/15/2007 2:04:22 AM
Author: echelon6
The data is found here: https://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds_info/t/all_about.aspx?articleid=299&zoneid=21


since its common consensus amongst PSers that 78-82 LGF is the sweetspot.

Again you talk about a consensus that I do not believe exists. Where do you derive this information? It is a mystery to me.

Wink

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 7/15/2007 11:32:29 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 7/15/2007 11:21:25 AM
Author: Pyramid


I am just a consumer and have been here for years. As far as I remember there was never any talk about LGF% until maybe 6 months ago when Storm pointed out he preferred them longer and I remember a post with Storm and John from Whiteflash about this. I have never seen any common consensus amongst PSers that 78-82 LGF is the sweetspot. Ofcourse you have to remember that lots and lots of PSers are not really into the technical stuff here, I am interested in it, but many just want the beautiful diamond and to know it is ideal. Therefore there are only a few who may have mentioned LGF but I don''t recall any of the vendors or experts really saying one was better than another. I do know that Storm has discussed this many times and it is mostly that which I remember when I hear LGF%. Maybe I am wrong because lately it is becoming more a topic and maybe I have missed reading some of them though.

LGF% has been talked about as long as I have been here.
I think it was the second or third day I was here that I asked what do these facets do and how do they affect the diamond.
I have been looking into that answer ever since.
77-80 is the common ground that many experts here have.
Its where Paul, Brian and Jon and others overlap on their opinions of whats the right lgf% for ideal cut diamonds.

It cannot be judged separately from the main pavilion angle.

Live long,

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/15/2007 12:28:58 AM
Author:echelon6
Hi all

I've been looking at WF's ACA collection and noticed that nearly ALL their stones (in the 1.5+ct range at least - that's what I've been shopping around for) have LGF%
But according to their own self-set criteria for ACAs, LGF% are bound between 76-80%. Out of around 10 ACAs they have in my carat range, only one has LGF at 78%, none above that, and probably 70% of their ACAs have LGF
Is there a reason why it seems that WF intentionally stocks ACAs with low LGF%s? Or have all the high LGF tight stones been sold already? (I doubt that)

And more intriguingly, WF seems to be in breach of its self set criterial of 76-80% for stones to qualify as ACA, since many of their stones have LGF%s of 74-76%

Well we surely don’t mean to be 'breachers.'

Each ACA is cut with our formula for visual balance in mind.That’s just “our thing.” If you’re looking for something different there are other options, available through us or any of the reputable sellers here.

Re; the purple chart: Lower halves used to be reported by height % which is a bit longer than length % (now used on reports) and 76-80 height correlates with 74-78.4 length. Still, you could see a tick either way. Scanners have a bit of error so please treat the numbers as guidelines. The final decision rests with Brian. Only he decides what makes it into his brand.

Our inventory turns over quickly, so a specific number may come along that is "mind clean" for you, but in practical terms the measurements are secondary, as ACA has a consistent look and balance of qualities - the purpose of the brand. Thanks for the inquiry.

 

[phoenixgirl]

Very informative response!

Numbers can tell you only so much, and I certainly don''t know any lady who would prefer a thesis on LGF''s to a diamond that sparkles and speaks to our hearts.

All this talk about is this too deep and why doesn''t this add up to x reminds me of something I would read on Fred Cuellar''s website . . .

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/15/2007 2:10:00 PM
Author: phoenixgirl
Very informative response!

Numbers can tell you only so much, and I certainly don''t know any lady who would prefer a thesis on LGF''s to a diamond that sparkles and speaks to our hearts.

All this talk about is this too deep and why doesn''t this add up to x reminds me of something I would read on Fred Cuellar''s website . . .

AMEN to that, PG!

The problem with numbers is that they can be interpreted any variety of ways.....and at the end of the day, they are just characters on a page. They can have their place in being helpful as a *preliminary* way to weed down choices, but that''s the extent of their usefulness. Any other suggestion that a number should RULE the day is just FUD-mongering.

Nice to see some folks still know how to apply the old stand-by, common sense.

 

[angeline]

Date: 7/15/2007 2:44:13 AM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards


sorry if i said something wrong, I am exhausted about now. You should step in I think, though you did in the other thread I believe

I am handing the floor over now, as I have probably embarrassed myself somehow.

WHFSR - I believe from your posts that I have read that you have only the best intentions to learn and to help other people. I don''t see that you have embarassed yourself in any way. Good on you for trying to be helpful

a

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

Date: 7/15/2007 6:12:52 PM
Author: angeline

Date: 7/15/2007 2:44:13 AM

Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards



sorry if i said something wrong, I am exhausted about now. You should step in I think, though you did in the other thread I believe

I am handing the floor over now, as I have probably embarrassed myself somehow.

WHFSR - I believe from your posts that I have read that you have only the best intentions to learn and to help other people. I don''t see that you have embarassed yourself in any way. Good on you for trying to be helpful

a

I am just glad that the answer finally came out (of course it wasn''t going to come out last night at 230am EST But I imagine that it was good information for WF to have pointed out anyway, as they use the AGS DQD for their ACA so it would only make sense the the requirements of ACA be listed accordingly, though websites can be difficult to keep 100% up-to-date, and with JQ and others from WF putting in so much work to help out consumers like myself and everyone else on PS, its not so amazing it might happen from time to time!

 

[echelon6]

Date: 7/15/2007 1:35:06 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 7/15/2007 12:28:58 AM

Author:echelon6

Hi all


I''ve been looking at WF''s ACA collection and noticed that nearly ALL their stones (in the 1.5+ct range at least - that''s what I''ve been shopping around for) have LGF% < 76-77%.


But according to their own self-set criteria for ACAs, LGF% are bound between 76-80%. Out of around 10 ACAs they have in my carat range, only one has LGF at 78%, none above that, and probably 70% of their ACAs have LGF <= 75%


Is there a reason why it seems that WF intentionally stocks ACAs with low LGF%s? Or have all the high LGF tight stones been sold already? (I doubt that)


And more intriguingly, WF seems to be in breach of its self set criterial of 76-80% for stones to qualify as ACA, since many of their stones have LGF%s of 74-76%

Well we surely don’t mean to be ''breachers.''

Each ACA is cut with our formula for visual balance in mind.That’s just “our thing.” If you’re looking for something different there are other options, available through us or any of the reputable sellers here.


Re; the purple chart: Lower halves used to be reported by height % which is a bit longer than length % (now used on reports) and 76-80 height correlates with 74-78.4 length. Still, you could see a tick either way. Scanners have a bit of error so please treat the numbers as guidelines. The final decision rests with Brian. Only he decides what makes it into his brand.


Our inventory turns over quickly, so a specific number may come along that is ''mind clean'' for you, but in practical terms the measurements are secondary, as ACA has a consistent look and balance of qualities - the purpose of the brand. Thanks for the inquiry.

Hi John, its interesting you mention that your inventory turns over quickly. I''d be happy to wait until a more "mindclean" ACA becomes available.

Can I get an indication of how many NEW 1.5-2ct DEFG VS2-SI2 eyeclean ACAs you get each week?

 

[aljdewey]

I''m getting the strangest sensation of a troll alert all of the sudden........

 

[echelon6]

Date: 7/15/2007 11:18:28 PM
Author: aljdewey
I''m getting the strangest sensation of a troll alert all of the sudden........

Excuse me?

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

what is a troll alert?