Gemex VS IdealScope

[username]

OK, I''m looking at this diamond that has a Gemex report (http://www.gemex.com/htmdocs/consumer/why_light_performance.html#). I mentioned this in another thread, but this question is a little more specific. What can an idealscope tell me that a Gemex report can''t and vice versa? From my understanding, one is measuring light return (Gemex) and one is measuring light leakage (idealscope). So are these not the same thing essentially? What I''m thinking is that if I were to draw a black circle on a piece of white paper, I could measure the area of the white space to get the area of the circle and vice versa. Maybe it doesn''t really work that way, but I''m really trying to find out how the two may compare as I''ve tried to get my hands on an idealscope, but they have been sold out since I started looking for diamonds. This diamond happens to come with a Gemex report, so maybe that already tells me what I want to know. Maybe I need medication...

Any thoughts on this?

 

[^]

Stick around here long enough and you will definitely need medication, and perhaps some electroshock therapy. If you can afford it after the diamonds...

~Novice advice warning~

Keep in mind B-scope measures light return from a strong, direct light source. Meaning this most closely relates to LED or Halogen lighting performance, as opposed to diffuse or indirect lighting performance. ISEE2 would be a diffuse lighting performance analog, though not as thoroughly tested so far. B-scope also does not measure symmetry, but the IS can show you symmetry to a degree.

Rhino claims he doesn't need the BS, he can look at an IS (or rather, DiamXray image) and gauge what the BS results are going to be. For me as a novice, I like having all the "objective" support I can when purchasing a stone, so I took solace in seeing VH1, VH3, H3 for my stone. But it was only one part of the puzzle.

I believe IS is measuring both light return and light leakage. Light return would be intensity of reds or blacks; lack of light return, or white, would be light leakage. I'll let the experts chime in here, but all in all, I feel each is a good part of the puzzle.

^

 

[username]

Date: 7/10/2006 10:34:32 PM
Author: ^
Stick around here long enough and you will definitely need medication, and perhaps some electroshock therapy. If you can afford it after the diamonds...

~Novice advice warning~

Keep in mind B-scope measures light return from a strong, direct light source. Meaning this most closely relates to LED or Halogen lighting performance, as opposed to diffuse or indirect lighting performance. ISEE2 would be a diffuse lighting performance analog, though not as thoroughly tested so far. B-scope also does not measure symmetry, but the IS can show you symmetry to a degree.

I believe IS is measuring both light return and light leakage. Light return would be intensity of reds or blacks; lack of light return, or white, would be light leakage. I''ll let the experts chime in here, but all in all, I feel each is a good part of the puzzle.

^

Thanks ^, like the name.

It''s an AGS000 H&A and looks great under the viewer, so the symmetry has already been diagnosed and has passed my newfound rediculous standards for symmetry (thanks PS

). I just really want to see this thing through an idealscope and can''t get my hands on one so I thought maybe that Gemex report was really telling me something I wasn''t realizing.

:Going to bang head for a while: Funny there''s no smiley for that here.

 

[DiamondExpert]

Personal opinion - don''t get too hung up on the Gemex because, and here I don''t care what anyone says, you really don''t know what it is measuring and how to interpret it properly...OK, there I''ve said it!!!...diamondexpert, still perplexed by the Gemex instrument.

 

[Ellen]

user, I had both available with my diamond. What I found was that the GemEx report did correlate with my IS in certain areas. The bars rated 3 VH''s. The pictures did not, in my opinion, correlate with the bars. But I also had the IS, which told me everything I needed to know. And it did correlate with the bars. I also found, to a good degree, that the scintillation reproduction on the GemEx correlates with my diamonds actual scintillation, although there is much more than the GemEx produced.

If I only had my choice of one, hands down it would be the IS. But if I''m understanding correctly, you already have the diamond? If so, and you like what you see, you don''t really need the IS, imo.

 

[username]

Date: 7/11/2006 8:21:10 AM
Author: Ellen
user, I had both available with my diamond. What I found was that the GemEx report did correlate with my IS in certain areas. The bars rated 3 VH''s. The pictures did not, in my opinion, correlate with the bars. But I also had the IS, which told me everything I needed to know. And it did correlate with the bars. I also found, to a good degree, that the scintillation reproduction on the GemEx correlates with my diamonds actual scintillation, although there is much more than the GemEx produced.

If I only had my choice of one, hands down it would be the IS. But if I''m understanding correctly, you already have the diamond? If so, and you like what you see, you don''t really need the IS, imo.

No, I hadn''t purchased it, I was just taking it out for a test drive. While doing so, I MacGeyver''d an idealscope and it looked awesome. Yes, I tested it on some "less than ideal''s" and it worked as expected (since someone will ask...).

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/13/2006 11:41:42 PM
Author: username

Date: 7/11/2006 8:21:10 AM



No, I hadn''t purchased it, I was just taking it out for a test drive. While doing so, I MacGeyver''d an idealscope and it looked awesome. Yes, I tested it on some ''less than ideal''s'' and it worked as expected (since someone will ask...).

 

[Rhino]

Hi username,

Love your name btw. Answers below.

Date: 7/10/2006 10:01:58 PM
Author:username
OK, I''m looking at this diamond that has a Gemex report (http://www.gemex.com/htmdocs/consumer/why_light_performance.html#). I mentioned this in another thread, but this question is a little more specific. What can an idealscope tell me that a Gemex report can''t and vice versa? From my understanding, one is measuring light return (Gemex) and one is measuring light leakage (idealscope). So are these not the same thing essentially? What I''m thinking is that if I were to draw a black circle on a piece of white paper, I could measure the area of the white space to get the area of the circle and vice versa. Maybe it doesn''t really work that way, but I''m really trying to find out how the two may compare as I''ve tried to get my hands on an idealscope, but they have been sold out since I started looking for diamonds. This diamond happens to come with a Gemex report, so maybe that already tells me what I want to know. Maybe I need medication...

Any thoughts on this?

With regards to what a reflector image can tell you that BrillianceScope results can''t.

With an accurately taken reflector image one can determine the cutting characteristics described as painting or digging. Two features, which generally contribute to a decrease in brightness as observed in diffuse lighting environments depending upon the amount of painting/digging that''s been done. The AGS ASET is an even better reflector for distinguishing these characteristics and we demonstrate what to look for in these images on our site plus there are threads where I''ve posted this. BrillianceScope is a measurement of light performance in direct lighting environments so is limited in its ability to determine painting or digging in its results as the optical results of painting/digging is more easily determined in diffuse lighting environments.

An area where the BrillianceScope and the IdealScope corellate is in the analysis of light return vs light leakage. Ie. the more leakage that exists in a diamond, the worse the BrillianceScope results will be. In an idealscope you can determine whether facets are functioning are reflectors or non-reflectors. When facets are functioning as non-reflectors or what I''d simply refer to as windows (as opposed to mirrors) ... the more windows... the more leakage ... the worse the results will be. Same with Isee2 technology as well.

Information you can get from the BrillianceScope that you can''t get from an idealscope reflector image is not only if the facets are reflecting back light but also the frequency and intensity upon which they are being reflected back to the observer. Examining BrillianceScope graphics makes it easy to determine the nature of the light output of a diamond in direct lighting. For example if a person prefers an emphasis on broadfire flash ... piece of cake with Bscope results. if a person prefers a mix of broadfire mixed with pinfire ... again ... easy assessment. If a person has a preference for insane activitiy in direct lighting (like in Solasfera diamonds), this is easily determined and demonstrated from BrillianceScope results.

There are rare instances where Bscope results don''t corellate with human observation in direct lighting but in majority circumstances it most certainly does.

King of Diamonds aka "^" was recently in our store and visually seen the Solasfera to compare. He can confirm this as has thousands of other clients who have made the corellation both local and abroad regarding diamond apperaance in direct lighting.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/10/2006 10:34:32 PM
Author: ^
Stick around here long enough and you will definitely need medication, and perhaps some electroshock therapy. If you can afford it after the diamonds...

~Novice advice warning~

Keep in mind B-scope measures light return from a strong, direct light source. Meaning this most closely relates to LED or Halogen lighting performance, as opposed to diffuse or indirect lighting performance. ISEE2 would be a diffuse lighting performance analog, though not as thoroughly tested so far. B-scope also does not measure symmetry, but the IS can show you symmetry to a degree.

Rhino claims he doesn't need the BS, he can look at an IS (or rather, DiamXray image) and gauge what the BS results are going to be. For me as a novice, I like having all the 'objective' support I can when purchasing a stone, so I took solace in seeing VH1, VH3, H3 for my stone. But it was only one part of the puzzle.

I believe IS is measuring both light return and light leakage. Light return would be intensity of reds or blacks; lack of light return, or white, would be light leakage. I'll let the experts chime in here, but all in all, I feel each is a good part of the puzzle.

^

Thanks for clarifying King.

That is correct. With the reflector we have devised (DiamXray) I can visually assess intensity as reflected in BrillianceScope results.
One other weakness of reflectos I did not mention in my last post here is its inability to determine the *lack of brightness* in stones especially when observed in diffuse light environments. Ie. you can have what seemingly appears to be an outstanding reflector image yet lack brightness because too many facets are either

a. redirecting reflections of things obstructing light (like the observer standing before the stone) in certain shallow angled combinations or
b. too much light is being drawn from the horizon (which is best determined with an ASET rather than an IS) as seen in painted girdle diamonds.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/10/2006 11:22:13 PM
Author: DiamondExpert
Personal opinion - don''t get too hung up on the Gemex because, and here I don''t care what anyone says, you really don''t know what it is measuring and how to interpret it properly...OK, there I''ve said it!!!...diamondexpert, still perplexed by the Gemex instrument.

LOL. Gary ... I''ve been working with it hands on for 6 years now. If there is anything you don''t understand about it please feel free to call me except it''ll have to wait till I get back from vacation. I''m leaving tomorrow and will be back on the 25th. I''ve published a bit of material on our site including some new updated stuff that wasn''t on the old site. I just realized my study corellating reflector images to Bscope results wasn''t posted on the new site. I''ll have to add that once I return.

Hope this post finds you well friend.

Kind regards,

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/14/2006 2:52:19 PM
Author: Rhino
With an accurately taken reflector image one can determine the cutting characteristics described as painting or digging. Two features, which generally contribute to a decrease in brightness as observed in diffuse lighting environments depending upon the amount of painting/digging that''s been done.

AAAAACCCCCKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When are you going to quit with that painting and digging claim? Properly done painting does NOT generally contribute to a decrease in lighting as observed in diffuse lighting. Excessive painting, yes. properly done, no.

Go, have your vacation. Talk to the deities at GIA, they have relented on their earlier claim that painting was all bad. Come back and sin no more!

Wink

 

[DiamondExpert]

Rhino - I am suspect of any instrument which can be maxed out (consistently) in it''s measurementsby the things being measured...just what ISN''T this instrument telling me?!

...it''s like giving a class an exam in which 10% get a perfect score...just what have you tested?...you know very little about the 10%!...bad exam, and by anaology, bad instrument.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/14/2006 5:48:14 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 7/14/2006 2:52:19 PM
Author: Rhino
With an accurately taken reflector image one can determine the cutting characteristics described as painting or digging. Two features, which generally contribute to a decrease in brightness as observed in diffuse lighting environments depending upon the amount of painting/digging that''s been done.

AAAAACCCCCKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When are you going to quit with that painting and digging claim? Properly done painting does NOT generally contribute to a decrease in lighting as observed in diffuse lighting. Excessive painting, yes. properly done, no.

Go, have your vacation. Talk to the deities at GIA, they have relented on their earlier claim that painting was all bad. Come back and sin no more!

Wink

Haha... me wub Wink. You''re too funny ... deities at GIA. Wink ... I did say "depending upon the amount of painting/digging that''s been done." Personally I don''t like to see any at all but I''ll let a slight bit pass as long as it doesn''t impact face up optics.

Now I''m going to go have a GREAT vacation, Lord willing. BTW there is only ONE Deity I answer to and while He is addressed by a title/name with a capital G, the last two letters are not IA.

Cya when I get back bro.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 7/14/2006 8:31:13 PM
Author: DiamondExpert
Rhino - I am suspect of any instrument which can be maxed out (consistently) in it''s measurementsby the things being measured...just what ISN''T this instrument telling me?!

...it''s like giving a class an exam in which 10% get a perfect score...just what have you tested?...you know very little about the 10%!...bad exam, and by anaology, bad instrument.

Hey Gary,

Oh ... there is data that it is not telling you. You may want to read our new tutorial on the subject. I cover all known weakness as well as strengths for what I consider to be a very balanced view. If you have questions I''m here for ya, when I get back.

All the best to you.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Jon, what are you doing on the computer while your dear wife is doing all the packing?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/15/2006 12:30:09 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 7/14/2006 5:48:14 PM

Author: Wink

Date: 7/14/2006 2:52:19 PM

Author: Rhino

With an accurately taken reflector image one can determine the cutting characteristics described as painting or digging. Two features, which generally contribute to a decrease in brightness as observed in diffuse lighting environments depending upon the amount of painting/digging that''s been done.

AAAAACCCCCKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!


When are you going to quit with that painting and digging claim? Properly done painting does NOT generally contribute to a decrease in lighting as observed in diffuse lighting. Excessive painting, yes. properly done, no.


Go, have your vacation. Talk to the deities at GIA, they have relented on their earlier claim that painting was all bad. Come back and sin no more!


Wink

Haha... me wub Wink. You''re too funny ... deities at GIA. Wink ... I did say ''depending upon the amount of painting/digging that''s been done.'' Personally I don''t like to see any at all but I''ll let a slight bit pass as long as it doesn''t impact face up optics.

Now I''m going to go have a GREAT vacation, Lord willing. BTW there is only ONE Deity I answer to and while He is addressed by a title/name with a capital G, the last two letters are not IA.

Cya when I get back bro.


Peace,

GIA has acknowledged that some painting may be beneficial to diamond performance, especially in the creation of large flashes of dispersion rather than the pinflash that is normally seen.

Your constant comments of detrimental effect are causing unnecessary and unjustified fear in the consumer of any painting and this is not in thier best interest, nor frankly in the best interest of the industry.

I acknowlede your right to have a differing opinion to that of GIA and AGS, but your anti painting has reached the level of a crusade at the expense of truth and fairness. I like and admire you at many levels, but this crusade is just plain wrong in my opinion. While I agree that very little digging can be tolerated painting is of itself not a bad thing and may be very beneficial to the diamond. Excessive painting is bad, but just as I agree that eating too much is bad, I should really hate to go a month without eating.

Eating properly is delicious good. Proper painting can be just as good!

 

[Regular Guy]

I'm a big supporter of Jonathan at GOG, think he's being an ignorant slut for harping on painting, but, sorry, the reason I'm posting this morning....

Date: 7/15/2006 11:10:31 AM
Author: Wink


Eating properly is delicious good. Proper painting can be just as good!

Wink...how did you make that strike through! I've seen this before and never see it on my editing tools. Are you using Internet Explorer?

Thanks for helping me with this.

Now, back to your sponsor.

 

[WinkHPD]

At the office I use IE at home I use Firefox because my wife used the ie and we each want our email to be the dominant email. At the top of the box I am typing in is a row of buttons which include left, center, right, justifications as well as bold, Italics, underline, strikethrough, IMAGE INSERT, (wow, I have been wondering how people did that!) and link. The code for strikethrough is what you want struck through . Take out the spaces after the
I am so glad you asked!

Wink

 

[username]

I think this post has derailed beyond any recognition...

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/10/2006 10:01:58 PM
Author:username

Any thoughts on this?

It looks like a lot has been said, but I''ll add 2 cents. The fundamental difference is that reflectors (like Firescope) were developed by diamond cutters to improve methods in the factory while BScope was created as a tool to help stores sell diamonds. So, (depending on how the latter is used) there is a credibility gap. In perspective, useful data can be learned from both.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/14/2006 8:31:13 PM
Author: DiamondExpert
Rhino - I am suspect of any instrument which can be maxed out (consistently) in it's measurementsby the things being measured...just what ISN'T this instrument telling me?!

...it's like giving a class an exam in which 10% get a perfect score...just what have you tested?...you know very little about the 10%!...bad exam, and by anaology, bad instrument.

Gary, I agree but I disagree. I'm interested in your opinion on the below.

GemEx was first to capitalize on a void in the diamond shopper’s world.

There’s not a ‘Consumer Reports’ for diamonds. They’re a mystery. Nervous buyers seek validation and BScope can scratch that nervous itch: Shoppers WANT correlations they can understand so it’s an easy sell, especially in commercial markets.

Take Rhino: He understands the buyer’s need for validation (and he specializes in the DOCD consumer’s need for hyper-validation).

He’s a smart seller and has developed opinions on several different technologies in support of his sales efforts. In this sense he has created his own, customized set of ‘consumer reports.’ He takes some heat for this but, in his defense, whether other professionals agree with his opinions is not as important as his being consistent in them – which I believe he is.

Unfortunately there are stores using BScope in the mainstream where sellers exaggerate what results imply, or even change how they interpret the page based on what it takes to make a sale. I’ve seen it firsthand. It’s flagrant abuse and I side with Gary’s warnings in these situations.

So Gary, using your comparison, I don’t believe the problem lies with the instrument (or the exam) as much as it lies with some misleading teaching & scoring that takes place.

BScope is not a bad instrument - but it can be used badly. Use of techno talk to manipulate reality or cause fear in the marketplace leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. That’s where Pricescope is the nervous buyer’s best friend. Thanks to moderation, experienced members don’t treat any black box as ‘absolute.’ That’s a compliment to Pricescope, and opens the door for those who keep the use of BScope, Isee2, Imagem, etc., in proper perspective.

Technology isn’t going away, it’s growing. Our company recognizes the marketing value of these devices and the validation ‘itch’ they scratch for consumers. As long as they are not treated as absolute we feel they provide an interesting piece of the overall puzzle.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/15/2006 11:10:31 AM
Author: Wink

Date: 7/15/2006 12:30:09 AM
Author: Rhino

Haha... me wub Wink. You're too funny ... deities at GIA. Wink ... I did say 'depending upon the amount of painting/digging that's been done.' Personally I don't like to see any at all but I'll let a slight bit pass as long as it doesn't impact face up optics.

Now I'm going to go have a GREAT vacation, Lord willing. BTW there is only ONE Deity I answer to and while He is addressed by a title/name with a capital G, the last two letters are not IA.

Cya when I get back bro.


Peace,

GIA has acknowledged that some painting may be beneficial to diamond performance, especially in the creation of large flashes of dispersion rather than the pinflash that is normally seen.

Your constant comments of detrimental effect are causing unnecessary and unjustified fear in the consumer of any painting and this is not in thier best interest, nor frankly in the best interest of the industry.

I acknowlede your right to have a differing opinion to that of GIA and AGS, but your anti painting has reached the level of a crusade at the expense of truth and fairness. I like and admire you at many levels, but this crusade is just plain wrong in my opinion. While I agree that very little digging can be tolerated painting is of itself not a bad thing and may be very beneficial to the diamond. Excessive painting is bad, but just as I agree that eating too much is bad, I should really hate to go a month without eating.

Eating properly is delicious good. Proper painting can be just as good!

Agreed. Fear in the marketplace on this topic is unjustified. RC and early glitches have been fine-tuned since launch.

From GIA: Less than 2% of ALL diamonds graded are decided by a brillianteering judgment. This includes far-more deleterious digging.

Any Pricescope Vendor is capable of screening such a diamond.

If not, we should begin a campaign of concerned warnings about milky S or VS fluorescence too, even though it impacts a fraction of diamonds and is just as screen-able.

 

[WinkHPD]

In response to a couple of comments received.

Paul Slegers does not paint his diamonds.

He looked at an EightStar the first time he visited me, said the way the edge to edge brilliance was obtained was painting, and that he would not be painting any of his diamonds. (This was back when he had fewer than thirty diamonds for me to choose from, at the very beginning, long before I knew what painting was.

Just to avoid any confusion that my liking of properly painted diamonds has any thing at all to do with Paul.

Wink