Whiteflash ACA vs Expert Selection

[PierreBear]

Hi PSers,

Can you help me understand the visual difference (without using a loupe, just with the naked eye) between a round brilliant ACA and expert selection? I'm definitely still learning but just comparing the actual diamond image, ASET, and ideal scopes that the website shows, it all looks fairly similar. Is it worth paying the premium for the ACA or is this difference between mind clean (ACA) and eye clean (expert selection)? Also not sure if it matters but the stone I would be considering would be 2 to 2.5 CT.

Also, if I wanted to just do it right and go with an ACA, how do you pick between the stones when they are already given this type of stamp of approval? Is it then just finding what works best with your budget and how sensitive you are to color?

In terms of color, what is the lowest that one could go in a larger stone to still be worn with a platinum setting? Would a J and below be too warm as I've heard that larger stones show more coloring?

I appreciate the help! Thanks in advance!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

First let me start by saying I would be happy with any Whiteflash ACA. Their cut parameters are strict and all the stones are shown to be outstanding in cut with the images they provide. I have been the happy owner of a few!

As far as ES stones go, I have to evaluate each of those individually. I will say in general that most of us would not be able to just look at one and know whether it is ES or ACA because they usually are pretty great stones, as well. I will even say that my daughter has a WF Premium Select, and the only thing that caused it to be in that category was that it got excellent instead of ideal on polish which absolutely cannot be seen with the eyes.

My personal preference would be H color if I can reach my size parameters, but many outstanding rings here have I color ACAs. Most recently m2b's and grateful4life's amazing large ACAs were both I color and VS clarity. So I color is the lowest color I personally would choose for a modern round brilliant. And I like a balance of quality, so I also choose VS clarity for ring stones. Your preferences certainly may vary from mine, though!

So, any ACA is okay, but I would have to pre-select any ES stones. Knowing your situation, I'd post here and get feedback on all the potential stones that fit your budget and let us help you narrow it to maybe 3. Then give that list to your husband.

 

[PintoBean]

Skin tone can factor in. As a MAC NC 27 without a tan, I find that K's with fluor still face up white for me.

 

[gm89uk]

As far as I can tell,

Expert selection stones are usually pretty grade but there is a spectrum. Some JUST miss out on ACA because of nuisances such as a slightly off hearts or small bit of leakage, but generally they are fantastic diamonds.

There are very few I've come across that I may skip such as http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3143300.htm

Saying that, at least you have the reassurance that they have been vetted by people passionate about diamond cut and thought the stone was pretty enough in real life to be in the Expert selection section. To say expert selection isn't their top of the line, I've found that they are generally better performers compared to some other vendor stones that aren't their top of the line.

Other examples like:

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3718113.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3754133.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3186654.htm

The above standard is by far the majority and the first one I posted is the exception, I couldn't really obviously tell you why they weren't ACA. They were just three random expert selections I picked out.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Other examples like:

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3718113.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3754133.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3186654.htm

The above standard is by far the majority and the first one I posted is the exception, I couldn't really obviously tell you why they weren't ACA. They were just three random expert selections I picked out.

Love the proportions on #1 and #2...

 

[gm89uk]

Other examples like:

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3718113.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3754133.htm
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3186654.htm

The above standard is by far the majority and the first one I posted is the exception, I couldn't really obviously tell you why they weren't ACA. They were just three random expert selections I picked out.

Love the proportions on #1 and #2...

Small table, high crown height... Your favourite!

 

[miraj]

I want to clarify some terminology that you used, which I might have misinterpreted:

difference between mind clean (ACA) and eye clean (expert selection)

Just to be clear on what ACA stands for: it means that the diamond is optimal for both light performance as well as symmetry and matching the H&A pattern. It also prohibits inclusions that affect light return. This means that you'll get a bunch of bright sparkles and scintillation, but that the sparkles will be in a extremely symmetrical (and therefore aesthetically pleasing?) pattern and it will look just like the ideal H&A template.

But ACA does not mean that you can't see the inclusion. Such as this one, with a big black inclusion under the table. It is ACA, but it isn't marked as eye-clean by Whiteflash and I'd guess most people could see the inclusion. So ACA does not mean that the diamond is clean of visible inclusions, hence not "eye clean".

By my observations Excellent Selection typically are lacking the outrageous level of matching the H&A pattern that the ACA has, but they are still AGS000. So you'll get basically the same level of light performance as ACA, but the symmetry/pattern might be just slightly off so that when you look under a scope the H&A pattern shows very slight deviations from perfect... maybe some of the hearts are slightly closer and some are slightly further from the center, or some of the hearts have "clefts". You could gather that this might provide very slightly less symmetrical sparkle patterns, which could be less aesthetically pleasing. But I would expect that at that level the difference in sparkle symmetry and cut pattern is unnoticeable to the amateur. What you are buying with ACA is a sense of pattern-specific "mind clean", not inclusion-specific "eye clean".

 

[gm89uk]

It is worth asking WF on an individual basis why this stone was discounted and not awarded a cut above standard. It might be something very insignificant to yourself but important for WF to discount to maintain brand consistency.

 

[PierreBear]

Thank you all for taking the time to explain and provide guidance and even making sure that I wouldn't misinterpret the comments! As diamondseeker alluded to, I think with all this powerful knowledge, I'm going to eventually turn this future project to my husband on the upgrade with specific parameters. Thanks again and will start a new thread to get some guidance on carat size recommendations.