Whiteflash New Line
- Thread starter pyramid
- Start date
- Status
A question for Storm, or others who have seen both Classic and New Line.
After looking at photos of Mara's stone and other stones in Show me the Ring bought from the same vendor. Can you really not see the difference between the two styles from still photos, apart from the Idealscope image? or is it possible to see it in a photo? Do the photos of the New Line show owners of the rings take show more colours in them due to it or less busyness at the edges, I mean people's photos not the online photo at Whiteflash showing the stone for sale?
After looking at photos of Mara's stone and other stones in Show me the Ring bought from the same vendor. Can you really not see the difference between the two styles from still photos, apart from the Idealscope image? or is it possible to see it in a photo? Do the photos of the New Line show owners of the rings take show more colours in them due to it or less busyness at the edges, I mean people's photos not the online photo at Whiteflash showing the stone for sale?
I''ve examined and seen a lot of painted diamonds and non-painted diamonds. Branded and unbranded ones.
This is not something that can be expressed in a way that is accurate in every case. It is a stone by stone call.
In the WF stones, I''ve seen, some of the Classics do come close to the New Line "look".... others don''t. Some are significantly different, others are not. Diamonds are each different and even if you compare two stones cut infinately "identical" there are variances in them. Crystal structure, orientation of the grain of the stone when its cut, and a host of other characteristics come into play in making this type of call .
It does take experienced eyes, and specialized equipment to note the differences. For an expert that is experienced, it CAN be more OBVIOUS than if judged by untrained consumer eyes. For consumers, the most obvious difference is in comparison using the firescope/ Idealscope.
As far as PHOTOS are concerned, because most cameras do not pick up the dispersion (spectral colors) you woldn''t be able to make an accurate judgment on the appearance based on a photo.
Thank you Rockdoc.
I read somewhere that sometimes painting has to be done because of a fault in the blocking causing something to the polish so the brilllianteer will change the angle of the facet to make it good again. Is this and to retain weight the reasons it is done really? I know certain brands have done it to reduce leakage but was that their only reason or was it because of the rough causing a thin girdle or something?
I read somewhere that sometimes painting has to be done because of a fault in the blocking causing something to the polish so the brilllianteer will change the angle of the facet to make it good again. Is this and to retain weight the reasons it is done really? I know certain brands have done it to reduce leakage but was that their only reason or was it because of the rough causing a thin girdle or something?
I think it depends on the extent of the painting and if it is crown painting/ pavilion painting or both.... which for crown painting within limits generally doesn''t increase weight. Digging DOES.
There of course, be other reasons the cutter chooses to do this, such as to paint to remove a very slight natural or improve symmetry or polish in the girdle to upper break facet area.
RE: Thin girdle: I would think this too varies a lot based on the area of the rough that the girdle will be bruted. The crystal edges of rough are not generally straight, even or symmetrical for the shape of the intended finished item, but to get a really good cut the girdle HAS TO be. As I''ve written multiple times here, the FOUNDATION of the cut IS the girdle and how well the stone''s girdle is bruted and then finished. If the girdle isn''t straight, or the bezels, halves and valleys are equal the facets in the crown and pavilion won''t be either. This does affect the optical symmetry of the stone, and it inherent appearance even to the point of whether the girdles is faceted, bruted or polished. Even these characteristics have an affect on the stone''s face up appearance.
Rockdoc
Your assumption is partially "right". Some folks have a preference between the two as far as appearance.
I can tell you that most of the real experts are able to see and discern the differences, and place great appreciation and thus premium value on stones of this nature, when they are the best of the brand.
A lot depends on how the consumer wants to weigh what an expert is able to see. Some think an expert''s opinion isn''t needed. Others put great given weight to an expert''s opinion. My experience with this has been driven by pointing out what my eyes see to teach their eyes. Without this guidance and teaching many consumers cannot see the differences. To a consumer these are subtle. To an expert ( and honestly even FEW gemologically trained experts know and can see the differences ) these are not subtle.
In a layman''s perspective who hasn''t yet gotten any advice and education about diamonds on the internet, just about ANY diamond looks good to them. If they do notice something, generally that ''something'' is a far more SERIOUS characteristic than they anticipate. One might assume that "it is really difficult to cut a diamond that it doesn''t have at least some level of attractiveness". Even poorly cut diamonds set in rings in a showcase with beneficial lighting makes em look nice.... sometimes very articifically nice.
I''ve omitted my personal preferences in this thread, as years ago I did state what my heartfelt opinions were, and got accused of being biased because of it. To me, I am educating based on experience, knowledge and my assessment of attractiveness.
A consumer is certainly entitled to his assessment of attractiveness, quality and personal preference. I don''t try to change this with an intentionally. I DO try to positively inform. I see that as my job.
As far as your conclusions of it "may or may not look better to me" is certainly in your province to make, but having an in person to see how an expert makes that conclusion may change your propective.
Rockdoc
Taken from page 4 of this post Why would anyone object to painting?
Diamond rough will not always take normal indexing. Cross-workers do things which cause a polishing error for many reasons. The whole art of brillianteering is to observe these minor polishing faults and attempt to create a faultless finish, which may include azimuth shift, digging and painting. This is the brillianteerer''s job.
Does this mean that New Line stones have been painted due to polishing errors or due to trying to isolate leakage at the edge?
Diamond rough will not always take normal indexing. Cross-workers do things which cause a polishing error for many reasons. The whole art of brillianteering is to observe these minor polishing faults and attempt to create a faultless finish, which may include azimuth shift, digging and painting. This is the brillianteerer''s job.
Does this mean that New Line stones have been painted due to polishing errors or due to trying to isolate leakage at the edge?
So are you saying that real experts liked the painted stones of the top quality? The thing that has bothered me the most, apart from the not being able to see the difference myself, is that I thought all experts preferred the classic style and it was just the consumers who were split. I think reading that Brian Gavin did not prefer them maybe what made me feel this way.
GIA criticizes painting or digging on their reports making a "brillianteering statement". It depends on whether the crown only, pavilion only or if both are painted and to WHAT EXTENT.
In severely painted or dug stones, you''re probably correct. It was done to remove a slight error of marking. Sometimes the primary reason is weight retention especially around stones of 1.00 ( at carat weight breaks etc ).
In the stones that are painted to "improve" their face up appearance, GIA''s criticism of this is a bit unfair, and has led to cutters not doing it to avoid the "deadly" brillianteering comment.
From my perspective, if painting or digging IMPROVES the stone in any way, it shouldn''t be considered a negative. Here GIA is only telling "half of the story". It would be far better to report which was done, and to what extent, but our scaning technology is quite that exact yet. Unfortunately it puts a "black cloud" undesevedly on some stones.
Grading labs and appraisers are supposed to report useful information providers, one that tell the full story, not just "half" of it. When this doesn''t happen, everyone is a forced into making and less than a properly and accurately informed decision suffers.
Rockdoc
I don''t think Brian feels this way. If it were true, why would have he produced the New Line stones? Each method of brillianteering has its own pros and cons.
As John mentioned above - WF cutting partner isn''t cutting them because of GIA''s approach to their cut grade.
In AGS lab graded stones this isn''t an issue. But Brian is one of the few merchants that for the ACA line uses AGS lab reports EXCLUSIVELY. His cutting partner cuts stones for other sellers who use GIA. WF and Brian are to be commended for using AGS. Like many others they COULD have stuck with a lab that is less stringent. That would have been "easier" for him, and resulted in potentially higher graded stones, but he didn''t. That in itself is a very courageous thing to do in the very competitive world of diamond selling.
Rockdoc
BrianTheCutter
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2002
- Messages
- 146
Greetings to all.
Pyramid, you are a long-standing contributor to this forum. I appreciate your interest in this topic which is close to my heart. You’ve asked about my preferences and information on New Line. Since this thread was called to my attention I would like to offer comments directly from the source.
First, and most importantly: Any remarks about my “preference” have been taken out of context. Let me state unequivocally that the different styles of ACA are at equal levels of appeal or they would not be ACA.
Second: I believe it may be helpful to tell the story of New Line.
When ‘A Cut Above’ was growing in reputation another respected company was producing diamonds with a distinctive all red-black reflector image. Comments in certain forums maintained that other diamonds were inferior to this brand. It was said that no one else was capable of achieving their specialized look. For that reason, and to provide my clients with options, I designed and produced ACA New Line.
I did not alter my ‘A Cut Above’ fundamentals. I took parameters I’d already established for ACA and applied specialized brillianteering. Everyone knows this as painting now, but at the time it was very hush-hush (such days are no more thanks to the internet!!). There are other differences. For example, we do not eliminate all leakage in cases that, in my opinion, require too much painting. This is why there are “overlap” diamonds between ACA Classic and New Line (nearly all red-black but showing some leakage in their reflector photos).
When the first New Lines were produced they grew in demand. I was asked many times by my fellow professionals if I would be raising the price of New Line. I never have. I set out to show the expertise that exists within the company and to demonstrate that we could produce these goods at our chosen price point. Further, as I’ve said many times, I consider New Line and Classic equals (though some experts consider New Line superior). My priority has always been visual balance and consistency for both. Over the years the thousands of clients who have purchased one, the other, or both, have reinforced this equality to me.
Third: Although these diamonds have not changed the market has.
The labs spent millions of dollars in research verifying what top cutters have known for generations. I developed ACA parameters before major cut grading systems existed. I think it’s wonderful that official research has validated the parameters but we were there first.
In 2006 GIA’s cut grading system started downgrading diamonds for a certain degree of painting. While this was good for discouraging poorly produced commercial diamonds, the decision also penalized some Tolkowsky-make superideals with no performance issues. Objections were raised by diamond manufacturers and wholesalers from centers of the trade in Antwerp, India, Japan and other places. Dialogue with GIA resulted in some revisions - but their system is not sophisticated enough to assess individual diamonds on a case by case basis as the AGS does.
I want to be clear that I believe GIA is a good organization. I believe their new cut grade is positive for the world’s consumers on the whole. But it is also my opinion that it ranges too wide and fails to be specific enough to satisfy a community such as Pricescope or the clientele I wish to serve. That point is underscored if we look at recent worldwide production. Since 2006 there has been an increase in deep pavilion angles and more abundant steep/deep combinations that can hide weight since those configurations fall into the new GIA EX.
The 2006 GIA development caused two ripple effects as it relates to this thread.
1. By their actions, GIA is removing a specialized kind of diamond from the market. Even when appropriate some manufacturers won’t use this technique, to be sure their diamonds will be ‘safe’ for the overall, easier, EX cut grade. We still produce ACA New Line but have reduced the quantity. We have also cut them by private request. In that sense those who have New Line have something very special.
2. On this forum GIA’s position created a foothold for fear to be created in the minds of consumers considering any such diamond. That is unfortunate because no fear should exist as long as the diamond is produced with controls in place that do not overstep the mark.
This “forum fear factor” is the reason I undertook explaining the issue in a journal article (link to article). For any who have not read it, the piece demonstrates how sophisticated this issue is. Every diamond is different and using one fear-creating word (painting) to simplfy and stereotype treatment of a range of vastly different diamonds is misleading, and unfair to the perfectly good diamonds with appropriate controls in place.
This thread is an example: Pyramid developed concerns about ACA New Line from reading “warning threads” on this forum…but not a single "warning" here has ever been written by a person who has actually seen or owned ACA New Line! Consumers here can become fearful of a New Line diamond they’re considering when there is absolutely nothing to fear. Even this week we hosted an out of town client who had heard fearful things about "painting.” Like Pyramid he did considerable study but his concerns remained. He traveled to our offices requesting a number of diamonds to view, Classics and a New Line. We gave him the five stones and the freedom to choose with his eyes. After all his deliberations the New Line was one of his favorites. He was shocked and told us he expected there to be a difference he would be able to see after all the “fuss.” When online clients have such fear it is laughed away when they take delivery (just ask them)…but who knows how many people have been turned away from a diamond that was a perfect fit because they were frightened away by use of the word "painting?"
What’s strange is that this “forum fear factor” is the reverse of real-world experience. On the rare occasion when a client has indicated a strong preference for an ACA style it has been for New Line. It is possible that some consumers simply prefer the “mind clean” of the all-red-black reflector image, but several people of whom I speak of are seasoned professionals and diamond collectors - experienced enough to perceive the refined distinctions a trained eye can see. Either way, not a single person has voiced distaste for New Line.
Let me say without a doubt that there are no “painting” concerns here.
I hope my words answer your questions about my tastes, why I produce ACA New Line and why there should be no fear with these diamonds. Opinions may vary, but the controls and consistency of this product do not.
There are many companies who produce nice diamonds and many beautiful stones in the world to choose from. At the end of the day a person needs to feel comfortable with who they are buying from as well as what they are buying. This often comes down to a matter of trust, which is why I feel strongly about Pricescope: The forum is a good place for the exchange of ideas and information and is the best educational resource on the internet for new consumers, as long as the information is sound. I post here in this spirit of providing such information about a product I produce.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the subject.
Pyramid, you are a long-standing contributor to this forum. I appreciate your interest in this topic which is close to my heart. You’ve asked about my preferences and information on New Line. Since this thread was called to my attention I would like to offer comments directly from the source.
First, and most importantly: Any remarks about my “preference” have been taken out of context. Let me state unequivocally that the different styles of ACA are at equal levels of appeal or they would not be ACA.
Second: I believe it may be helpful to tell the story of New Line.
When ‘A Cut Above’ was growing in reputation another respected company was producing diamonds with a distinctive all red-black reflector image. Comments in certain forums maintained that other diamonds were inferior to this brand. It was said that no one else was capable of achieving their specialized look. For that reason, and to provide my clients with options, I designed and produced ACA New Line.
I did not alter my ‘A Cut Above’ fundamentals. I took parameters I’d already established for ACA and applied specialized brillianteering. Everyone knows this as painting now, but at the time it was very hush-hush (such days are no more thanks to the internet!!). There are other differences. For example, we do not eliminate all leakage in cases that, in my opinion, require too much painting. This is why there are “overlap” diamonds between ACA Classic and New Line (nearly all red-black but showing some leakage in their reflector photos).
When the first New Lines were produced they grew in demand. I was asked many times by my fellow professionals if I would be raising the price of New Line. I never have. I set out to show the expertise that exists within the company and to demonstrate that we could produce these goods at our chosen price point. Further, as I’ve said many times, I consider New Line and Classic equals (though some experts consider New Line superior). My priority has always been visual balance and consistency for both. Over the years the thousands of clients who have purchased one, the other, or both, have reinforced this equality to me.
Third: Although these diamonds have not changed the market has.
The labs spent millions of dollars in research verifying what top cutters have known for generations. I developed ACA parameters before major cut grading systems existed. I think it’s wonderful that official research has validated the parameters but we were there first.
In 2006 GIA’s cut grading system started downgrading diamonds for a certain degree of painting. While this was good for discouraging poorly produced commercial diamonds, the decision also penalized some Tolkowsky-make superideals with no performance issues. Objections were raised by diamond manufacturers and wholesalers from centers of the trade in Antwerp, India, Japan and other places. Dialogue with GIA resulted in some revisions - but their system is not sophisticated enough to assess individual diamonds on a case by case basis as the AGS does.
I want to be clear that I believe GIA is a good organization. I believe their new cut grade is positive for the world’s consumers on the whole. But it is also my opinion that it ranges too wide and fails to be specific enough to satisfy a community such as Pricescope or the clientele I wish to serve. That point is underscored if we look at recent worldwide production. Since 2006 there has been an increase in deep pavilion angles and more abundant steep/deep combinations that can hide weight since those configurations fall into the new GIA EX.
The 2006 GIA development caused two ripple effects as it relates to this thread.
1. By their actions, GIA is removing a specialized kind of diamond from the market. Even when appropriate some manufacturers won’t use this technique, to be sure their diamonds will be ‘safe’ for the overall, easier, EX cut grade. We still produce ACA New Line but have reduced the quantity. We have also cut them by private request. In that sense those who have New Line have something very special.
2. On this forum GIA’s position created a foothold for fear to be created in the minds of consumers considering any such diamond. That is unfortunate because no fear should exist as long as the diamond is produced with controls in place that do not overstep the mark.
This “forum fear factor” is the reason I undertook explaining the issue in a journal article (link to article). For any who have not read it, the piece demonstrates how sophisticated this issue is. Every diamond is different and using one fear-creating word (painting) to simplfy and stereotype treatment of a range of vastly different diamonds is misleading, and unfair to the perfectly good diamonds with appropriate controls in place.
This thread is an example: Pyramid developed concerns about ACA New Line from reading “warning threads” on this forum…but not a single "warning" here has ever been written by a person who has actually seen or owned ACA New Line! Consumers here can become fearful of a New Line diamond they’re considering when there is absolutely nothing to fear. Even this week we hosted an out of town client who had heard fearful things about "painting.” Like Pyramid he did considerable study but his concerns remained. He traveled to our offices requesting a number of diamonds to view, Classics and a New Line. We gave him the five stones and the freedom to choose with his eyes. After all his deliberations the New Line was one of his favorites. He was shocked and told us he expected there to be a difference he would be able to see after all the “fuss.” When online clients have such fear it is laughed away when they take delivery (just ask them)…but who knows how many people have been turned away from a diamond that was a perfect fit because they were frightened away by use of the word "painting?"
What’s strange is that this “forum fear factor” is the reverse of real-world experience. On the rare occasion when a client has indicated a strong preference for an ACA style it has been for New Line. It is possible that some consumers simply prefer the “mind clean” of the all-red-black reflector image, but several people of whom I speak of are seasoned professionals and diamond collectors - experienced enough to perceive the refined distinctions a trained eye can see. Either way, not a single person has voiced distaste for New Line.
Let me say without a doubt that there are no “painting” concerns here.
I hope my words answer your questions about my tastes, why I produce ACA New Line and why there should be no fear with these diamonds. Opinions may vary, but the controls and consistency of this product do not.
There are many companies who produce nice diamonds and many beautiful stones in the world to choose from. At the end of the day a person needs to feel comfortable with who they are buying from as well as what they are buying. This often comes down to a matter of trust, which is why I feel strongly about Pricescope: The forum is a good place for the exchange of ideas and information and is the best educational resource on the internet for new consumers, as long as the information is sound. I post here in this spirit of providing such information about a product I produce.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the subject.
elmo
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,160
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 19,139
well written Brian.
Interesting how history and histerics often combine to make stories, isn''t it?
It is also rather funny that protagonists and anti painting people were often once vendors for or clients of the un named heavily painted diamonds brand that among other tings, claimed all sorts of falacious scientific mumbo jumbo.
it was only after I bought a new line sample from you (because the other brand would not supply me) that I could see that this was an interesting ''look'', but just different. The very few 8*''s that I ever saw - their was never anything quite well enough cut to compare in those store - but Drena''s diamonds gave me an idea that there were brightness differences trade for a little more fire.
I think you were right to back off on the degree of painting, but then you were not needy of extreme differentiation
Interesting how history and histerics often combine to make stories, isn''t it?
It is also rather funny that protagonists and anti painting people were often once vendors for or clients of the un named heavily painted diamonds brand that among other tings, claimed all sorts of falacious scientific mumbo jumbo.
it was only after I bought a new line sample from you (because the other brand would not supply me) that I could see that this was an interesting ''look'', but just different. The very few 8*''s that I ever saw - their was never anything quite well enough cut to compare in those store - but Drena''s diamonds gave me an idea that there were brightness differences trade for a little more fire.
I think you were right to back off on the degree of painting, but then you were not needy of extreme differentiation
- Status
The Ultimate Guide to Men’s Wedding Bands: Metals, Fit & Finish
The Ultimate Guide to Men’s Wedding Bands: Metals, Fit & Finish - 06/27
Chipped Diamonds: Causes, Risks, and What You Should Do About It
Chipped Diamonds: Causes, Risks, and What You Should Do About It - 06/27
300x240.png)