Impartial Brilliance Scope Results

[niceice]

We are often asked why we do not offer Brilliance Scope (BS) results on our diamond details pages which happen to be quite detailed. We thought that our reason for not doing so might be of assistance to people on this forum regarding the diamonds that they are considering...

The reality is that the accuracy of the Brilliance Scope relies heavily on the ability of the user to accurately calibrate the machine and scan the diamonds being scanned in a consistent and impartial manner.

The reality is that many of the internet dealers who have promoted the use of the BS have had their machines taken away by Gem Ex for over-calibrating their machines so that their diamonds would score higher than they would if measured on a correctly calibrated machine.

The reality is that many of the internet dealers who have had BS machines were caught re-scanning diamonds that scored Very High and entering the information for other diamonds in their inventory that did not score well so that those diamonds would appear to be better than they are...

The reality is that we feel that these types of events damage the integrity of the machine and that by promoting the use of the machine that by using the machine ourselves and thus promoting the use of the machine, that we would be unwillingly promoting the consumer fraud being perpetrated by these other companies.

who have no reason to see one diamond score higher than another... As we understand it, GemEx hopes to have all machines in retail use picked up by October of this year. We want to congratulate GemEx for taking this bold step to maintain the integrity of their product!!!

as diamonds can be sent to either source for independent and accurate results. We know that RockDoc can tell many stories regarding diamonds that supposedly scored Very High according to the results published by the internet dealer selling the stone only to score poorly when he scanned the stone using a properly calibrated machine... No doubt other independent gemological laboratories will soon join the list of laboratories offering independent and impartial Gem Ex Brilliance Scan services, we look forward to adding them to the list of companies providing this service...[/u][/u][/u]

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Thanks Nice. A very informative post.

I have the BrillianceScope low on my "Equipment To Buy" list for some of the very same concerns which you address above.

If Gemex does take these measures to maintain the integrity of their product, I will be impressed.

I'm curious how they have the right to take back an instrument somebody has paid for though. Is there some kind of contract that a person signs when they buy one, that would give Gemex this right?

 

[JOE_Q]

Robin and/or Todd.
For those of us who have relied in part on Bscope scores in our diamond purchase. Can you tell us the names of these many internet dealers?
We'd hate to think our diamonds are somehow invalidated.

Thanks
Joe.

 

[Caratz]

----------------
On 5/15/2003 10:20

1 AM JOE_Q wrote:

Robin and/or Todd.
For those of us who have relied in part on Bscope scores in our diamond purchase. Can you tell us the names of these many internet dealers?
We'd hate to think our diamonds are somehow invalidated.

Thanks
Joe.


----------------

Personally, I do not want to see vendors hurling accusations at one another by name. If in fact GemEx is really recalling the machines, that is sufficient evidence for me that either the machines are unreliable or GemEx has reason to believe that scores are subject to manipulation. If you are concerned about your stone, I would suggest sending it to someone independent who has a GemEx machine (like Rockdoc) and get an independent BScope report. And if there is a big difference with the BScope report you got from the vendor who sold you the stone, then I would raise hell.

 

[Rhino]

And at the same time remember there are those of us who use it, keep it properly calibrated and with the utmost integrity represent the diamond "as it is" and "as it scores". We also happily send any stone to to any appraiser for reverification if they'd like it checked on a 2nd machine. If you're purchasing from a vendor who has one and they refuse to have their diamond sent to an appraiser with a B'scope this should tell you something. Caratz, there is nothing wrong with the machine when properly calibrated. Matter of fact it is quite sensitive to the intensity of the light return coming out of the diamond. Even giving diamonds hits in brilliance detecting the minutue differences that I see in the blacks/dark reds/pale reds under our LightScope.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Turtle]

I agree with NiceIce....have it sent to an independant appraiser like RockDoc. I did and the results were very similar to the report run by Jonathan at GOG. I'll post the pics for comparison. The first one is Jonathan's and the second one is RockDoc's.

 

[StevL]

niceice,

That surely is a lot of information you posted. I believe with the issues brought up about the BS it has always been a major issue that the machine "could be" miss used.

Now lets see if Gemex does what you have posted.

 

[Turtle]

Had trouble uploading the pictures. They were too large. You can follow the link to see Jonathan's B-Scope image.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_08ct_e_vs2_h&a1.htm

The attached and cropped B-Scope report came from RockDoc. As you can see, the two reports are very similar and am pleased with the results. Thanks Jonathan and RockDoc!

 

[niceice]

Those of you who are familiar with our background concerning the BS know that we really inflamed the company a few years back when we published an article on our web site describing the design flaws that the machine was experiencing at that time... One of the major points of concern that we had with the machine was the fact that the machine could be calibrated by the user. Gem Ex was rather inflamed by our opinons, we eventually removed the article from our web site after extensive discussions with a neutral third party regarding the article... We're not trying to say that we were threatened with legal action, we weren't... The reality is that we had been informed that "Nice Ice would NEVER be allowed to own a Brilliance Scope unit" because of the article and we had actually never intended to upset the powers that be at Gem Ex by writing our article, we merely intended to point out what we felt was wrong with the machine and why it should not be relied on as an "absolute" factor in the decision making process by consumers... Last month we were informed that we could have access to a Brilliance Scope until October 2003 if we wanted it, but that all retail units would be recalled at that time for the reasons stated above...

Now we want to say, yes - we do know who most of the offending dealers are, but we're not in the mood to be sued today... The worst offenders have had their units taken away already, others have been placed on probation... If you "must know" who was accurate and who isn't you might consider thinking about who promoted the use of the machine really heavy and then decided that it wasn't such an important thing to have in the end. We want to state for the record that we have NEVER heard anything negative or questionable about the scans provided by Jonathan at GOG - he is truly one of the "good guys" in our opinion and we value his presence as a worthy competitor in our market!

By the way, if you're wondering how Gem Ex busted the offending dealers, it was due to simple things like diamonds being sent to people like Bill Lieberman as scoring at the high end of Very High and then scoring on the high side of Good to low Very Good that caused him to call Gem Ex to determine why his scans weren't scoring as well... It is our understanding that after a few times Gem Ex changed the algorythms of their units so that they could determine older scans from new ones, etc. and thus be able to determine whether a single high performing diamond is being scanned over and over again... The company should be praised for taking such active steps to detect such acts of consumer fraud and for their efforts to make the product a more reliable and stable resource for consumers in the future...

What about diamonds scanned previously? For those of you who are concerned, we suppose that you could always send it out to be re-scanned by an impartial source like RockDoc or Gem Ex, but the reality is that if you love your puppy, we wouldn't worry about it...

 

[barry]

Todd;

Very interesting. The fact is that the BScope is programmed
in such a way that if it is not properly maintained and calibrated,
it will automatically shut down and prevent the vendor from generating a
Light Analysis Report.

Every diamond that is run on the machine is first submitted to
Gemex for review. The software can detect dirty stones, misaligned stones,
improper voltage regulation, and insufficient calibration,
degree of separation, and a host of other important variables
that must be in place in order for the diamond to pass muster and a Report issued by Gemex. If there is a problem with the run,
the vendor is immediately notified and the diamond must be re-run.
Validation of the run is only accomplished after Gemex review and their
issuance of an official Gemex Light Analysis Report. If the problem persists
with the machine, Gemex will send their Tech Support to your office to fix the problem. You can verify all of this directly with Gemex
(262) 242-1111.

Variability in the Bscope is on the order of +/- .2 % and naturally
in fully calibrated machines there will be slight but insignificant
discrepancies in the bar-graphs for the same stone between
two different machines. We have found the BScope very useful in imparting
visual information on light output to our clients.

Regarding Gemex pulling machines from retail vendors,
we have not heard anything from Gemex to that effect.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

We stand behind our BrillianceScope data and results 100%.

Regards,

Barry
www.superbcert.com

 

[niceice]

We're not saying that Gem Ex has not made dramatic improvements in the way that they have changed their machines to better protect the public from fraudulent use, they definitely have Barry... We are merely stating why we do not use a BS machine and our understanding of the intention of the company regarding further distribution of their units... It is our understanding that when the Gem Ex database of scanned stones reaches 10,000 on a cutter scanned level or October 2003 whichever comes first that they intend to recall the retail units... As a cutter, they may very well allow you to keep your machine - who are we to say?

 

[StevL]

turtle,

Here are your two reports pasted together. Make it easy to compare.

 

[barry]

Hey, Todd;

One thing is certain; if they do pull the machine
I'll be able to reduce my prices substantially

. (Preceded by a long vacation).

Barry
www.superbcert.com

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The difference in those 2 bar graphs is way more than + - 0.2%.

 

[RockDoc]

Richard....

The reason that Gemex can take back their BScope is because they are not sold.

There is a monthly rental fee, as well as a per use charge, and and a charge for their laminated reports.

Gemex, I can wholeheartedly report is that they do care about the level of information reported to consumers. Secondly, their tech support is unequaled, including hopping on a plane and flying in to the location to fix anything that might not be operating correctly.

Rockdoc

 

[niceice]

----------------
One thing is certain; if they do pull the machine
I'll be able to reduce my prices substantially

. (Preceded by a long vacation).

Barry
www.superbcert.com

----------------

No doubt. I don't think people really realize how expensive and time consuming it is to make detailed diamond grading information readily available on every diamond being sold... The equipment is expensive and the time it takes to personally evaluate and photograph every diamond is astronomical... We were ready to pick up the BS machine last month after discussing the changes that Gem Ex has made in their system, but elected not to do so since we were going to have to surrender the machine in October, we figured that they'd be picking the machine up right about the time we got good at it

 

[Adrienne]

Maybe I missed it, but why would Gem Ex pick up the machines in October/at 10,000 scans? What is the point of that?

 

[niceice]

As we understand it, the goal of Gem Ex is to create an on-line database of diamonds that are available to dealers from suppliers who have run the diamonds on a BS unit... Another multiple listing service essentially, but this one contains only diamonds which have been scanned on BS... When the database reaches 10,000 stones then Gem Ex intends to pull the machines from the dealers and then the dealers will have to buy diamonds from suppliers who are using the BS if they want diamonds scanned on the machine... Or the dealer may elect to send diamonds to Gem Ex directly... We have our own reservations about this tactic, but we suppose that the company can market their product any way they seem fit.

 

[Hest88]

----------------
On 5/15/2003 4:46:36 PM niceice wrote:

As we understand it, the goal of Gem Ex is to create an on-line database of diamonds that are available to dealers from suppliers who have run the diamonds on a BS unit...
----------------

Fascinating. This makes a whole host of bells go off in my head. Makes it sound like Gem Ex is basically creating their own retail brand. Hm...

 

[Spyder]

I would just like to say that as a consumer I find the pictures of the 5 light positions to be very informative when diamond shopping. It shows one the nature of the light being returned: you can see if the diamond is showing mainly white light or colored light. I do not know of any of the other scopes that show you the balance of white/colored light in a particular diamond.

I find the five light pictures to be more informative than the bar graphs.

The five light pictures also show you the symmetry of the light being returned (assuming that the stone is aligned correctly in the bscope). Sarin analysis can tell you how symmetrical the material stone is, but the bscope pictures show you how symmetrical the light being returned is, which is a slightly different thing, and perhaps a more important thing. Sometimes a combination of asymmetrical stone angles can balance out to produce symmetrical light return, especially if the cutter was fine tuning the diamond by watching the light rather than by watching the stone.

I would be happy just seeing the five light pictures with no bar graphs, if it came to that. I hope gemex does not make it too difficult for consumers to see bscope-like reports; I found them to be very insightful, and wish more vendors provided them.

There is nothing like seeing a diamond in person, and when it comes to internet shopping, the closest thing to seeing the diamond in person is seeing five analog photos of the diamond under varying light angles.

...and then there is Isee2... Do they produce analog light pictures in their reports?

 

[barry]

Spyder;

Your perspective from a consumer's point of view
is valuable and I encourage you to contact
Gemex directly ([email protected] or 262-242-1111)
and express your point of view.

I agree that the diamond story is more clearly told
in the light view images rather than the bars
and I've suggested to Gemex that they reverse the position
and show the images on top. It is here that you
see the location, concentration, distribution, intensity,
and interplay of light.

As far as the Isee-2, it does not currently measure
dispersion or Fancy shapes. Both are being developed.

Barry
www.superbcert.com

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Spyder all you need to do now is find a brillianscope type ring lighting environment and you can enjoy looking at the diamond the same way

The symmetry variations can be very much effected by any tilt in the table (becuase the table is the plane of reference - the stone is resting face down on it).

Our studies show that a tilt in the table would thus make you pass over stones that would actually be fine performers and very symmetrical.

An ideal-scope view of a diamond suffers from none of these problems, shows you a true result for symmetry, and is a more realistic lighting structure.

You actually do not "see" a diamond in a Brilliancescope photo - you "see" a digital photographic representation of a diamond (hopefully the same one with no silver foil or other tricks performed).

With an ideal-scope photo you can confirm the image yourself for $25 once you recieve the stone

We will be showing an Ideal-Scope lighting set up (God willing) that will standardise the photographic setup so results are the same for all dealers and labs.
This system will have a balanced and controlled pavilion illumination that will show leakage that can not be seen in Firescope, Lightscope or Imagescope photo's where all the above use a perspex tray and directional illumination which reduces leakage.

I have just had 2 papers published in the Australian Gemmologist that I will bring with me to Vegas if anyone wants to read them - 1 concerns this lighting issue.

 

[barry]

Garry;

I remember speaking with you last year at
the Vegas show (ironically in front of
the Gemex Booth) discussing the merits/demerits of
an underlying standardized lighting system for detecting
light leakage. At the time you touted the
free-standing IS as the best, most accurate
method for detecting leakage. Our experience
and that of others, recounted much variability
in these results which can change depending
on background lighting conditions and the
necessity for a steady hand.
(A couple of drinks and I see leakage from more than one
stone).

It is good to see that you've finally come around to the
realization for the need of a steady background light source.

Barry
www.superbcert.com

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Barry you are not up to date.
We have had the best free hand lighting problem solution available for 2 or 3 months.
Check out the expert model, with a duplex (no need for triplet since there is no dispersion) with its diffuser dome.

Same result in broad daylight as dim lounge room.

But ggo to hear you have a few drinks too

 

[niceice]

One thing that we would like to know is this... Does anybody remember a "laboratory" a few years back called "Diamond Profiles" out of Florida? As we recall, the images that they used on their "lab reports" were practically identicle to those that appear on the Brilliance Scope reports... Don't shoot us in the head if we're wrong about this, we're only exploring a theory here and don't have an old version of the DP reports to compare to, that's why we're asking if anybody remembers them... Anyway, as we recall, the equipment they were using had actually been developed for the colored stone market to measure the visual properties, hues, etc. of colored gems and the investors soon realized that while the concept was good, there was not a market willing to pay for the service... So they flipped their marketing strategy a bit and concentrated on the diamond market, the problem at the time was that the equipment really didn't do such a great job of measuring the light return on diamonds... Is the BS a tweaked version of that concept or do the pictures just look similar? Garry, you may know more about this because it seems to us that you've played with most of the toys...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You are on the money R&T.

Al Gilbertson (now a GIA researcher) was part of that team, funded by the Kessler bros (Renata watch batteries and tools etc).
They also did things like a Firescope pic.

They were operational last year when I chatted to Danny at Vegas I think.

There was a very nasty bust up and the Gemex guys went one way.
I believe the legal battle raged from mid 1990's for about 5 years. Their machine measures more lighting positions and is said (by them) to be more accurate, but takes much longer.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

http://www.sykessler.com/ go to products - then - diamond profile

 

[RockDoc]

DPL Facts

The unit that was being used at DPL was a totally different unit than the Diamond Brilliance Scope. The software and the unit was primarilly designed to do colored stones.

The software and machine is not honed in for diamonds, and is very improved over the old unit that DPL had. I don't know if they've switched their machine for the newer one. I do know that Gemex really can't support the old machine. It sold for about $ 70,000.00. The new system costs a lot less to manufacture, so it costs a lot less to operate than the Lamda Spec ( the old system).

Also, Garry .... the results have a tolerance of 2% not 0.2 %.

Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The new system is better?
Or cheaper?
Or both Roc?

When I scale off the scintillation scores for Turtles results that Steve posted above I get 72.5% and 82%.
That is more than 2%.

 

[StevL]

Garry,

Lets for the sake of argument say the above two graphs are different diamonds. Let's say the top graph is a vendor offering a diamond for Y amount of money. Lets say the bottom graph is a vendor offering a diamond at X amount less money than Y. Most consumers would look at the top graph as being a better diamond and worth the extra money when the truth is they could be identical performing stones. This is a problem I see when using this device to make a buying decision.

Or it could be turned around depending on your point of view or the sales technique used to explain the differences in the two supposedly different diamonds.