Would you ever not choose an ACA

[AprilBaby]

Assuming you were going to buy one, would you ever knock one off the list for cut? I am speaking strictly about ACA, not competitors or color or size, just cut. Are there ever any poor performing ACA?

 

[Laila619]

Yes, I have seen some I did not like. It might be that they had feathers (I won't buy a stone with feather inclusions), the crown angle was too shallow for my taste, the pav angle too deep for my taste, or I wasn't impressed by the idealscope image.

 

[elle_chris]

Assuming you were going to buy one, would you ever knock one off the list for cut? I am speaking strictly about ACA, not competitors or color or size, just cut. Are there ever any poor performing ACA?

Did they change their standards? Because I haven't seen, or heard of a poor performing ACA. You might have a preference for a higher crown, small table etc.- but if it made it to ACA, it should be a gorgeous stone.

 

[Christina...]

I've seen an ACA with a corresponding idealscope image that didn't impress me, but assumed that any leakage shown in the image wouldn't be visible in real life viewing. I would trust WF to thoroughly evaluate the stone and only provide what the believed to be of superior quality and performance. All tests have their limitations, it's real life viewing that determines if a stone is beautiful and I trust WF to make that determination....within brand expectations of course.

 

[delight]

They have variations in quality. I won't pick one without a less than perfect aset since I'm buying online. I would leave those stones to others.

 

[delight]

They have variations in quality. I won't pick one without a less than perfect aset since I'm buying online. I would leave those stones to others.

 

[marymm]

Not that they'd be poor performers, but I really prefer a table of 56-57% and would not want an ACA with a 54-55% table - I also don't like too high of a crown (I know, blasphemy, right?) - but these are just my preferences, not anything to do with ACA quality.

 

[SB621]

Besides the reasons already posted I personally wouldn't pay for a premium diamond under .50ct. I don't have the PS eagle eyes so for anything under that threah hold I would prefer to just get a well cut diamond. When we start getting into larger sizes and I feel like cut makes a HUGE difference then I would be more careful about selection.

 

[DelsFan]

They have variations in quality. I won't pick one without a less than perfect aset since I'm buying online. I would leave those stones to others.

What makes a perfect aset?

From what I "think" I've learned here, based on the idealscope and aset images the (first) F-color stone should look better than the second (E-color) stone, in person. Am I on track here or would one just need to see the stones in person? Or are they both "top 1% stones"?


http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2684406.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2982215.htm

 

[yssie]

They have variations in quality. I won't pick one without a less than perfect aset since I'm buying online. I would leave those stones to others.

What makes a perfect aset?

From what I "think" I've learned here, based on the idealscope and aset images the (first) F-color stone should look better than the second (E-color) stone, in person. Am I on track here or would one just need to see the stones in person? Or are they both "top 1% stones"?


http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2684406.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2982215.htm

Why?

Ditto SB - I wouldn't pay a H&A premium for a smaller stone. Of the ACA rounds I can't remember seeing more than one specific specimen that I'd consider "sub-par" - I remember thinking that it was very unusual, and wondering how it made the grade, so to speak. Not because I think any leakage would've been visible IRL - like Christina I trust WF to vet them - but because compared to all the other TheyAllLookTheSame photos the deviation was startling. I *have* seen AGS0s that I would not want. The ES and PS rounds are more variable, and there are two totally distinct flavours of ACA princesses and I have a strong preference for one over the other - but again that's preference and personal bias, not necessarily objective good/better/best...

 

[DelsFan]

Why? Because the ASET from the E-color stone is more dull and the idealscope image has more grey and is less vibrant.

If you want to tell me I don't know how to read the images that is just fine, because it is really possible that I don't.

Each stone is an ACA stone - should I trust that and forget the rest?

 

[delight]

I think people misunderstood my words about perfect ASETs.

These 2 are better examples.

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2982215.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2949573.htm

I know people on pricescope have a herd mentality about ACA. I for one, won't randomly choose any ACA stone. Of course, there might be people who differ in opinion and choose the 2nd stone. Not me.

 

[yssie]

Why? Because the ASET from the E-color stone is more dull and the idealscope image has more grey and is less vibrant.

If you want to tell me I don't know how to read the images that is just fine, because it is really possible that I don't.

Each stone is an ACA stone - should I trust that and forget the rest?

I don't bite!
I was curious what you saw that I didn't. Now that you point it out I do see what you mean - comparing the two sets of pics, the ones for the E are brighter and more contrast-y.
They really are both picture-perfect stones though. Sometimes a vendor's photography, lighting, post-processing setup a can vary a bit, resulting in sets of photos that are more vivid than others, but what you're looking for is if, given a certain baseline brightness/contrast within each photo, if there are more whites/greys/pinks/blacks/whatevers. It's not so much comparing between sets (because differences are due to photography) as it is comparing artifacts within sets... I hope that makes sense! Hopefully someone else will see this and explain it more clearly.

 

[DelsFan]

...They really are both picture-perfect stones though. Sometimes a vendor's photography, lighting, post-processing setup a can vary a bit, resulting in sets of photos that are more vivid than others, but what you're looking for is if, given a certain baseline brightness/contrast within each photo, if there are more whites/greys/pinks/blacks/whatevers. It's not so much comparing between sets (because differences are due to photography) as it is comparing artifacts within sets...

That is super helpful! Thanks!

 

[Christina...]

I'm confused....are delsfan and delight two different posters or the same?

I'm relieved that you posted Yssie. I just spent 10 full minutes flipping back and forth between the four stones posted as examples, and I couldn't see any differences that would relate to performance either. I thought that I was missing something obvious, so I was relieved to see that you posted with the same thoughts that I had....the only differences that I see are in the photography. I do see what delight does...I think....that two of the images appear crisper, sharper and more bright, but I came to the same conclusion as Yssie being that the differences are not performance based but photography based. Red is red in ASET, blue is blue and so on, the fact that one image appears to have a more vivid color isn't indicative of better performance. I'm sure that you've seen IS images from different vendors...some are very very red,thing BGD, others are a softer shade, think James Allen, but they both represent the same thing. Of course that changes when you get to light pinks, grey, white as Yssie mentioned but I think what you are seeing is simply that one image appears to have better exposure... better temperature I suppose you could say.

Anyway, ACA's are cut to super tight standards, I wouldn't expect them to vary in performance by any real noticeable way, regardless of what the reflector images were telling us.

Yssie, I'm curious...you mentioned seeing one example of an ACA that you consider sub-par...was that perhaps a year or so ago? I'm just wondering if it happened to be the same one that I saw with images that didn't impress me much.

edit...grammar

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Just want to say, all the ACA's that have been posted in this thread are outstanding stones judging from the images. I'd happily accept any of them!

Aprilbaby, my answer to your question is no, there is not going to be a poor performing ACA. Most Expert Selection stones are fine, as well, although I would have stronger preferences for some over others. And I would definitely buy ideal cut, whether ACA or ES in small stones.

 

[Christina...]

Just want to say, all the ACA's that have been posted in this thread are outstanding stones judging from the images. I'd happily accept any of them!

Aprilbaby, my answer to your question is no, there is not going to be a poor performing ACA. Most Expert Selection stones are fine, as well, although I would have stronger preferences for some over others. And I would definitely buy ideal cut, whether ACA or ES in small stones.

I was just thinking of you! I've been searching trying to find the old thread we were both a part of...maybe you remember?? We were both making recommendations for someone and I happened to post an ACA that had some obvious (from the IS) leakage under the table. I think we came to the conclusion that it was photography and if not, the leakage would not be visible to the human eye. Anyway, that was the stone I referenced above and I'd like to see if I can find it again, but I'm having trouble. Do you remember the thread at all? I know I know.....thousands of threads and I'm asking if you remember this one!

 

[yssie]

Yssie, I'm curious...you mentioned seeing one example of an ACA that you consider sub-par...was that perhaps a year or so ago? I'm just wondering if it happened to be the same one that I saw with images that didn't impress me much.

You know, I think it might be! Given that we're both remembering one specifically... it was a long time ago and like your example it wasn't a doozy, just stuck out because it was such an anomaly...

I was gonna say "I'll try to dig it up" but I have NO idea what to search for!

I think people misunderstood my words about perfect ASETs.

These 2 are better examples.

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2982215.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2949573.htm

I know people on pricescope have a herd mentality about ACA. I for one, won't randomly choose any ACA stone. Of course, there might be people who differ in opinion and choose the 2nd stone. Not me.

When we say 'you can choose blindly' we don't mean going to a website, plugging in carat/colour/clarity, seeing five matches and saying "I pick #3!" and whipping out the card without a whit more thought. Most people will actually click on diamond #3, look at the photos, look at the report... 'choosing blindly' just means that aside from the rare exception you can assume that all five matches are excellent candidates.
It doesn't mean that those who want to nitpick the nuances shouldn't, or even that they don't have to.

I think it's important to distinguish between artifacts that cause visible variations, and thus are practical considerations, and variations that are or aren't mind-clean. The differences between these stones are the latter for the vast majority of consumers! And, well, there is a noteworthy difference between saying "look, there's a difference! I'm vindicated!!" and "look, there's a difference and this is how I believe it will impact light return, let me consult an expert (presumably someone on-site who can actually look at the stone) and see what he/she thinks". There's absolutely nothing wrong with not choosing a stone because something about it isn't mind-clean, whether or not it makes a practical/visible/appreciable difference... but I think it's important to recognise it for what it is.

On those two diamonds in particular - I do believe that speculating on the differences is in purely mind-clean territory for most: they are both beautiful stones, and to be honest I'm not at all confident that the slight variations aren't exaggerations that we can blame photography for! That said, I find it interesting that you, delight, would prefer the first over the second, given the photos we do have, as it has been my experience that most nitpickers would default to "digging, run!!"...
Cue Kenny - people vary!

 

[AprilBaby]

So assuming a poster comes on with an ACA on hold and wants to know if they have chosen a good stone, is the answer always yes? Is it infact foolproof? ( meaning cut only, inclusions are a whole different thing)

 

[delight]

Yssie, I'm curious...you mentioned seeing one example of an ACA that you consider sub-par...was that perhaps a year or so ago? I'm just wondering if it happened to be the same one that I saw with images that didn't impress me much.

You know, I think it might be! Given that we're both remembering one specifically... it was a long time ago and like your example it wasn't a doozy, just stuck out because it was such an anomaly...

I was gonna say "I'll try to dig it up" but I have NO idea what to search for!

I think people misunderstood my words about perfect ASETs.

These 2 are better examples.

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2982215.htm

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2949573.htm

I know people on pricescope have a herd mentality about ACA. I for one, won't randomly choose any ACA stone. Of course, there might be people who differ in opinion and choose the 2nd stone. Not me.

When we say 'you can choose blindly' we don't mean going to a website, plugging in carat/colour/clarity, seeing five matches and saying "I pick #3!" and whipping out the card without a whit more thought. Most people will actually click on diamond #3, look at the photos, look at the report... 'choosing blindly' just means that aside from the rare exception you can assume that all five matches are excellent candidates.
It doesn't mean that those who want to nitpick the nuances shouldn't, or even that they don't have to.

I think it's important to distinguish between artifacts that cause visible variations, and thus are practical considerations, and variations that are or aren't mind-clean. The differences between these stones are the latter for the vast majority of consumers! And, well, there is a noteworthy difference between saying "look, there's a difference! I'm vindicated!!" and "look, there's a difference and this is how I believe it will impact light return, let me consult an expert (presumably someone on-site who can actually look at the stone) and see what he/she thinks". There's absolutely nothing wrong with not choosing a stone because something about it isn't mind-clean, whether or not it makes a practical/visible/appreciable difference... but I think it's important to recognise it for what it is.

On those two diamonds in particular - I do believe that speculating on the differences is in purely mind-clean territory for most: they are both beautiful stones, and to be honest I'm not at all confident that the slight variations aren't exaggerations that we can blame photography for! That said, I find it interesting that you, delight, would prefer the first over the second, given the photos we do have, as it has been my experience that most nitpickers would default to "digging, run!!"...
Cue Kenny - people vary!

That 2 diamond comparison better shows the differences you get in ACA and not the 2 urls that someone posted earlier. What I meant by perfect ASET would be diamond 1 and diamond 2 was used as contrast for a NOT PERFECT Aset.

1) http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2982215.htm

2) http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2949573.htm (AVOID)

Considering the amount of premium for an ACA stone, I will never spend my money on an ACA with an ASET scope of diamond 2.
Yes, RUN from that stone. Many on pricescope simply recommend ACA blindly. I don't advocate that.

 

[DelsFan]

So, this would be another one to avoid, based on the (three or four) black arrows on the aset? (Although it does have an HCA of 1.2...)

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2983086.htm?source=pricescope

This has been the best thread (brilliance of the aset between sellers doesn't matter); I've literally lost sleep thinking the diamond I may end up with will not be as good as another one (for less money) that has a brighter (yes, from BGD) aset photo. It's no longer about the money either; I just don't want to pay $10,000/carat for an average (in the AGS0 category) diamond!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Not that they'd be poor performers, but I really prefer a table of 56-57% and would not want an ACA with a 54-55% table - I also don't like too high of a crown (I know, blasphemy, right?) - but these are just my preferences, not anything to do with ACA quality.

I am on the opposite side of the spectrum...I will not buy a stone > 56% table with a low crown height of < 15.5%. I don't like flat top stones.

 

[delight]

So, this would be another one to avoid, based on the (three or four) black arrows on the aset? (Although it does have an HCA of 1.2...)

http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2983086.htm?source=pricescope

This has been the best thread (brilliance of the aset between sellers doesn't matter); I've literally lost sleep thinking the diamond I may end up with will not be as good as another one (for less money) that has a brighter (yes, from BGD) aset photo. It's no longer about the money either; I just don't want to pay $10,000/carat for an average (in the AGS0 category) diamond!

That is a fine stone. I don't see any issues with it.