BrillianceScope Results

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Some extracts from "Cupids" amazing DT story
<<<<THE BRILLIANCESCOPE PARENTAL ADVISORY: Moms and dads, DON’T allow your kids to split hairs with the Brilliancescope: Promote it - because it provides statistics consumers can instantly appreciate. Cherish it - because it unerringly separates medium performing stones from high performing stones. But DO NOT treat it as ABSOLUTE, as the results are marginally inconsistent and are certainly FALLIBLE when comparing closely matched stones. Human eyes must perform the tiebreaker. + Example: The following resulted in 3 tries on one of the superideals: (1) BScope A: VH1 VH2 VH1 (2) BScope B: VH2 VH1 H3 (3) BScope B again: VH1 VH2+ H3. Also, the low score (scintillation) was the low score in all 3 BScope runs. But the subject diamond had incredible scintillation. It wound up as one of three finalists based on human observation of that particular quality. Jonathan believes scintillation is the most challenging element for the Brilliancescope to measure. He speculates that sometimes when it goes from position to position it records large “floods” of light but may be missing small “tinkles” that the human eye sees prominently. I agree with this assessment, especially considering all three finalist diamonds received their comparative lowest marks on the Brilliancescope in scintillation. Even at that, I’m a gung-ho advocate of the Brilliancescope. GemEx has much to be proud of. It’s the only device of its kind which parleys ciphers into language everyone can comprehend. The feedback it provides on the grand scale is unambiguously convincing. I applaud them for continuing to scrutinize and improve the product. In 10 years it may be as standard as the Sarin analysis. "Thanks Cupid
GH

 

[Cupid]

What a great discussion.Cut Nut - Are you referring to Sergey of Moscow State University fame? If so - can you tell me his last name?Live long and... do you hear the people sing?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Quote from RockDoc "Originally diamonds at DPL ( including the eightstars) were being measured using the LambdaSpec machine. The LambdaSpec was far more (and still is) designed to retrieve color information. Although DPL used the LamdaSpec for diamonds, Gemex learned that looking at a diamond in only three positions wasn't enough, so the Brilliance Scope was developed at a far lower cost, since it could be made more affordably without the advanced color spectrophotometer that could convert CIE, Munsell etc.
The Brilliance Scope has five positions in which its automatically "calibrating" light ring
adjusts based on the size of the object in the chamber.
>>>>>
So far, I have been pleased with the way the machine works, and Gemex's cooperation in improving and updating its software parameters. If cutters can cut a better stone, based on the information reported by the B'Scope, then why do you feel this is bad?
I also have yet to be convinced after years of study, that perfect symmetry is important. If I am correct then a lot of people are paying a lot of money for H&A's that look just as good as other well proportioned diamonds.
Imperfect symmetry will score lower on the BS because the flashes can not all turn on at the same time. Cut Nut>>>>Also very interesting is the translucent light filtered image shown as number 6. It is very "hearts and arrows" viewer like, but is much more accurate in the production of the image than most of the H&A viewers. Item six shows small variances of the arrows image in a far more detailed manner than most of the viewers. But what consumers need to know is that the B 'Scope is a "work in progress" that will continually be changing, particularly for the fancy shape stones. >>>>rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Here is another quote from Roc
"The B Scope measures the amount of white light, not how white it is. However some diamonds of lower color i.e H-K do show more dispersion than those of higher color." rockdoc

 

[jamesd]

Thanks. Now I'm clearer about your point. Yes, I'd agree on the searchlight aspect, where what matters is concentration and strong on-off effect.I'm not so sure that the FireScope doesn't report on it. Definitely doesn't do it in a direct way but if you have consistent patterns and strong distinctions between dark and light regions on the Firescope you are, I think, going to have similarly strong distinctions from all angles.If you get facet alignment which is off I think that would inevitably result in light entering the dark areas and decreasing the contrast in the FireScope.Part of the reason why good H&A patterns are, I think, of some value. They require good facet alighment and that should tend to produce full facet or large partial facet flashes and more brilliant and firey appearance.

 

[jamesd]

Frankly, I'd rather see a Firescope picture or have a count of total of all light on the Firescope, a total of all light above a certain intensity and a total of all light below a certain intensity. Above and below intensity levels to account for scintillation on/off effect. And you can't fake out the FireScope by cutting facets for specific angles.In presenting the results the BrillianceScope doe ssome nice things, but not when it comes to making itself vulnerable to circumvention.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Two quotes from DT around 12-May 2001IN almost 100% of the stones I've tested, the Brilliance Scope supports what your eyes see.
I can understand how the device can work with rounds, but with fancy shapes, it is so much more than brilliancy that makes a pleasing diamond. Maximizing brilliancy could lead to making a very poor overall selection in a fancy. When one thinks of the most brilliant pears or marquises, they are short/fat shapes. Not the nicest, best, most desired, etc, etc. How would you answer these issues.The Brilliance Scope rating bars alone are not enough to make a conclusion. Again for fancies the Brilliance Scope provides a good back up indication, but the trained and experienced eye still has to be in "command".RockdocObservation: DON’T split hairs with the Brilliancescope: Promote it - because it provides statistics consumers can instantly appreciate. Cherish it - because it unerringly separates medium performing stones from high performing stones. But DO NOT treat it as ABSOLUTE, as the results are marginally inconsistent and are certainly FALLIBLE when comparing closely matched stones.
Cupid

 

[Iiro]

Hi,I have never seen BS, but I have read a lot.
To me as diamond vendor it sounds like a great selling tool. It sounds like it makes the diamond look more than they really are!Do not get me wrong. I love selling tools. Today I connected my Digital camera to a mini TV. I am practising my skills to show diamonds under different scopes and same time show the image in TV. Lucky me, my camera fits to the eyepieces of these scopes perfectly

Brilliance scope would be a nice add to those scopes. What it shows and how much it has scientific value, I not know, but if it makes a show I have to consider it.S

 

[barry]

A few comments:1. In 100 % of cases, consumers
viewing Superbcert's when
visiting in Jonathon's store
have corroborated a direct correlation
between what their "eyes" have seen
and the results on the Brilliancescope.
The results, in short, are all extremely
positive!2. The consistently high scores
achieved by SuperbCert's on the
BrillianceScope on all 3 measurements
result in what many have dubbed
the "WOW" effect, i.e.; the impact of
SuperbCerts are viewed from acroos the room.3. The scores achieved by 8* on
the BrillianceScope are due to the unique
cutting characteristics and parameters
specifically chosen by 8* to achieve
certain results irrespective of
B'Scope performance. To criticise
the B'Scope as "penalizing" precision
cutting appears to me, therefore, to be off
the mark.4. Jonathon has scores of SuperbCert
BrillianceScope readings listed on his
web-site. The consistency of the
B'Scope results both within each
SuperbCert as well as across all SuperbCert's
is nothing short of phenomenal!
And, consumers, viewing these diamonds
absolutely concur their "visuals" with
the machine!5. There is, currently, a growing and
consistent body of evidence, both
from professional jewelers using the
B'Scope as well as anecdotal confirmation
from consumers that the B'Scope is quite
accurate and precise in corroborating
what the "eye" sees.
As such, in this age of I-Net,
the B'Scope provides a valuable tool to aid consumers in their decision-making.Barry www.superbcert.com
------------------
barry

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

At $35 a pop how many ordinary stones are going to get reported using a BS?
It will never make it in the Mall!How many AGS 5 reports have you ever seen?No diamond cutter or dealer will pay for a service that says what he is selling is 7/10 or rubbish.Garry

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

from JamesD>>
That scintillation area is also where I think the BrillianceScope has a possible weakness. Another one is the fixed illumination angles which can punish a more consistently cut diamond which is dark at one or more of the viewing angles. Do a less consistent job and you reduce that risk, so I think it may actually be rewarding less tight cutting. There's a nice example of this effect on SuperbCert's site, where they have a picture of an EightStar that's dim at one of the viewing angles compared to a SuperbCert that you can see in another picture is cut with faces at slightly differing angles in a cross pattern and lights up at least a bit in each position. These may be unusual samples of each brand and I don't know if this is a consistent effect. Since real viewing conditions give rapid swings through a range of angles, comparions like that one have the effect of decreasing my confidence in the BrillianceScope by showing how it can be used to mislead.
>>>>
Thanks James

 

[Wizard]

I'd be using the link from Cut Nut's site to his Russian friends diamond site, have a look at the Q factor graph and pick the diamond that is closest to the main yellow zone ie. Pav angle 40.5, Crn angle 34.5. It might be nice to also prefer table percentage closer to 54 - 55% and depth percentage ~ 60.5%

 

[Iiro]

Hi JamesD
A salestool to lesser diamonds?

Thats not flattering

S

 

[jamesd]

Barry,1. Did they also feel it gave an accurate portrayal of the appearance of the EightStars they say? I very much doubt it from the pictures and EightStars I've seen.2. I'd say it is the superb cutting and strong facet transitions and great alignment which produces large flashes of light that result in the WOW effect and that in the case of SuperbCert, the BrillianceScope is accurately measuring something which does correlate well with how your diamonds look.3. That's one case where we know it fails. Are there others, like possibly some of the non-traditional cutting angle sets suggested by MSU and GIA studies?4. You're obviously doing a superb job of cutting and it really shows in the comments and results you're getting.5. For routine cut diamonds and fortunate super-ideals, I fully agree and think it is a great sales tool. The better the cut, the more I want to see FireScope or other tools which aren't vulnerable to light hitting at a bad angle and making a great diamond cut look bad. So far, very few of the super-ideals seem to be unfortunate, so the issue isn't a major problem today. I'm not so sure what will happen as MSU and GIA studies progress and people possibly try to use the results in cutting.Fortunately for EightStar, the dark and light transitions shown in the pictures are a good illustration of how they concentrate the light into bright flashes instead of dispersing much of it into a dull background glow, so they can readily and accurately be explained in that way to consumers.For dealers selling most diamonds today, particularly those trying to sell something otehr than great ideals, it looks to be an excellent tool, subject to the limitations for some of the better cut diamonds.

 

[jamesd]

Sibelious, that isn't quite how I meant my post to sound. I'll try again on that part of it.If you take internet sales today, one of the trends is towards selling better cut diamonds than in the general market. THat is in part because it's really hard to describe and evaluate the cut quality of anything but the best. How do you describe the cut of a routine ideal cut diamond (still at the top end of the market) in a way that describes the way it looks rather than just giving numbers?The answer, as far as I can tell, is that you can't. Unless you use the BrillainceScope or, possibly, the FireScope. Except that the FireScope picture for a normal ideal cut is going to be very messy and hard to understand. Too little precision in the cut for the image to be easy to interpret.So, you can't use the best tool (IMO, the FIreScope) because it gives a hopelessly complec picture.What you can do is use the BrillianceScope. Since it relies on a computer to do the work it isn't put off by the very complex picture. That also lets you use it even for things like commercial cut diamonds if you like.So, while I have reservations at the very, very top of the market, I think the BrillianceScope tremendously broadens the scope for describing the appearance of diamonds succesfully over the internet. Vendors no longer need to rely just on names or angles or selling to qualicy but can use it to sell a full range of quality with some reasonable chance of success.As a result, for all my reservations, I think it's a great tool.

 

[StevL]

Rhino,You said "About the glass between the diamond and the light source: I see that it has no effect on the readings whatsoever. The reason I say this is because when you take the diamond without any glass and put it in the countertop viewer (of which I took my video files) you see absolutely no difference with or without the glass".Are you saying that glass has no refraction at all?

Is there any proof that the glass doesn't play even the slightest roll in the testing, and what countertop viewer are you speaking of?What makes their five lighting positions correct, could five different positions produce any different results?Just trying to learn a little more about this thing. I have to see one in action.------------------
StevL
www.demsjewelers.com
www.eightstar.com

 

[jamesd]

There were enough bad typos there that I'm posting it again, with corrections.Sibelious, that isn't quite how I meant my post to sound. I'll try again on that part of it.If you take internet sales today, one of the trends is towards selling better cut diamonds than in the general market. That is in part because it's really hard to describe and evaluate the cut quality of anything but the best. How do you describe the cut of a routine ideal cut diamond (still at the top end of the market) in a way that describes the way it looks rather than just giving numbers for angles or percentages?The answer, as far as I can tell, is that you can't. Unless you use the BrillainceScope or, possibly, the FireScope. Except that the FireScope picture for a normal ideal cut is going to be very messy and hard to understand. Too little precision in the cut for the image to be easy to interpret.So, you can't use the best tool (IMO, the FIreScope) because it gives a hopelessly complex picture.What you can do is use the BrillianceScope. Since it relies on a computer to do the work it isn't put off by the very complex picture. That also lets you use it even for things like commercial cut diamonds if you like.So, while I have reservations at the very, very top of the market, I think the BrillianceScope tremendously broadens the scope for describing the appearance of diamonds succesfully over the internet. Vendors no longer need to rely just on names or angles or selling top quality but can use it to sell a full range of quality with some reasonable chance of success.As a result, for all my reservations, I think it's a great tool.