Is BrillianceScope Reliable?

[cool_rock]

As a newbie to diamond purchasing, I have been looking for a report that will give consistant and reliable results for the actual "performance" of the diamons.




I thought that the BrillianceScope report is such a tool, but I heard that the results can be easily "manipulated." Is this true?




I also have the same question about Isee2.

 

[niceice]

Hey, would somebody with a Brilliance Scope do us a favor and toss an ideal cut yellow diamond on it and post the results for all to see? Preferably with a proportions combination that would likely score Very High, Very High, Very High if the diamond were colorless... We're looking to validate something that was mentioned to us by one of the major laboratories who evaluated this puppy and decided not to use it. No doubt that the results of this experiment on the ISee2 would also be of particular interest to the people here on PS.

 

[pqcollectibles]

IMHO,.... Instruments that test a diamond in a non-moving, static position do not accurately depict that "actual" performance of a diamond. Why?? Because the diamond does not move. The light source does. Diamonds being worn move around as the light source changes.

I view the Brilliance Scope and ISee2 results the same way I view the HCA. Screening tools to aid in the weeding process. The ultimate test of the performance of any diamond is your eye. Does the diamond spark and fire, flash white light, and perform the way you like.

 

[strmrdr]

Any of these tools:
isee2, b-scope, sarin, ideal-scope, firescope and many others are only as accurate as the skill of the person using, setting them up and calibrating them.
This will make a bigger difference than the inherent accuracy of the tools themselves.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 1/13/2004 11:15:48 PM cool_rock wrote:







As a newbie to diamond purchasing, I have been looking for a report that will give consistant and reliable results for the actual 'performance' of the diamons.


I thought that the BrillianceScope report is such a tool, but I heard that the results can be easily 'manipulated.' Is this true?




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

I cannot provide an insight on the ISee, but I can tell you that I've spoken with many of the reputable vendors here about the B/Scope.

Several vendors had it and got rid of it because it didn't produce consistently repeatable results. You could put the exact same stone in it 3 times and get 3 differing results....and those results varied from slightly to widely. In these cases, it wasn't even being "intentionally manipulated" or misused; it was being used as intended and it still didn't produce repeatable, consistent results.

That diminishes the value of its usefulness in my view. It's great information, but I wouldn't consider it GOSPEL. Just recognize it's limitations.

I wouldn't eliminate a diamond from consideration if it had "average" b/scope results but everything else about it looked great.

 

[cool_rock]

Thanks everyone for the information, comments, and/or opinions on the briilance scope.




Does anybody has any information, comments, and/or opinions on the Isee2?

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 1/14/2004 9:25:08 AM pqcollectibles wrote:

IMHO,.... Instruments that test a diamond in a non-moving, static position do not accurately depict that 'actual' performance of a diamond. Why?? Because the diamond does not move. The light source does. Diamonds being worn move around as the light source changes.
----------------

I am quite curious about this: what difference does it make? I understand that surely there is a difference between static and dynamic light return concepts/measurements, but what difference does it ake wether the dtone, the light or both move around? Well, at least from the point of view of how one defines and measures the usual components of optical performance.

As for the main Q on the thread: of course I wish I saw some measure of reliability of these measurements. Of course they have some (statistically measurable) degree of precission and consistency... to begin with, as oposed to being impossibly *perfect* tools. Is there a source for this technical data?

 

[mdx]

I would certainly not recommend making a buying decision based on the scores of one of these instruments.

The big question is “what do they actually measure?’’

Johan
Melbourne Diamond Exchange Ltd

 

[Daniela]

When I've been looking at the diamonds of PS vendors, it has been my observation that AGS 0 cut diamonds score lower on the B-Scope than the AGS 0 diamonds that display a crisp hearts and arrows pattern.

I own a hearts and arrows diamond, and I love it. But sometimes I wish I could put it side by side, in every possible lighting situation, with another AGS 0 stone, and see if it is indeed worth the premium.

I guess my question is this: What is the real-world difference between the BEST regular AGS 0 stone and the BEST hearts and arrows stone? And does the B-Scope capture that difference, or exaggerate it?

 

[pqcollectibles]

----------------
On 1/14/2004 11:09:29 AM valeria101 wrote:

----------------
On 1/14/2004 9:25:08 AM pqcollectibles wrote:

IMHO,.... Instruments that test a diamond in a non-moving, static position do not accurately depict that 'actual' performance of a diamond. Why?? Because the diamond does not move. The light source does. Diamonds being worn move around as the light source changes.
----------------

I am quite curious about this: what difference does it make? I understand that surely there is a difference between static and dynamic light return concepts/measurements, but what difference does it ake wether the dtone, the light or both move around? Well, at least from the point of view of how one defines and measures the usual components of optical performance.

As for the main Q on the thread: of course I wish I saw some measure of reliability of these measurements. Of course they have some (statistically measurable) degree of precission and consistency... to begin with, as oposed to being impossibly *perfect* tools. Is there a source for this technical data? ----------------

Just personal observations viewing diamonds. We all do it, sitting in the car, for example. Look at your diamond with your hand still on the steering wheel. Note what you see. Then move your hand and watch the flashes and sparks fly around the car.

If that's what happens in the "real" world, why wouldn't that apply to the Brilliance Scope principle!

 

[valeria101]

I thought B-scope measures some light dynamics... But my Q was actually something like: what is the difference, from what hapens with the light path through the stone is a) the diamond moves 4" to the right under static light source, and b) the diamond moves 2" to right and source moves 2" to left (so that the final distance between them is still 4" and c) the light moves 4" and diamond sits still. To me, these should result in the same light path dynamic.

I guess the B-scope does somethiglike version c), and the natural scenario is version b).

Is this wrong?

 

[pqcollectibles]

I found a possible answer to your Q, Val. Check out this link. It's a study of varying angles of light as well as multiple rays as opposed to one.

 

[Rhino]

Since I use both technologies on a daily basis I'd like to share my experiences.




Aldejay... the repeatability of it is as excellent as any other technology for measuring diamonds. At most we've only found it to be a half bar difference if that. We know of vendors who've had it and from some it was taken away, others returned. Why? My conviction is that their diamonds didn't measure up to what they thought they would and was not a good selling instrument for them. Initially the FireScope was also rejected by a majority of dealers. Why? Their stones didn't measure up and the inventor went back to Japan probably selling the only one to Gary!

We've had people travel to our store from all over the country and all over the world to correlate with their own 2 eyes the veracity of the technology and make the comparisons. I can point you to hundreds of people who will confirm that the most beautiful diamond (under direct light condtions) was the diamond that scored the highest BrillianceScope results. Not surprisingly the BrillianceScope also confirms the results of GIA's study concerning the subject of "fire". Ie. Diamonds cut to proper proportions WITH star facets and lower girdles cut to a certain length exhibit stronger fire (and I would also add scintillation) than those cut to other minor facet dimensions. The BrillianceScope confirms this.




Not only this but the BrillianceScope results can also be confirmed with red reflector technology (ie. LightScope). When a diamond gets certain BrillianceScope results I can always point to the reason *why* in LightScope technology. The 2 do not deny each other but confirm the results of each other. Two totally difference technologies telling the same information.




One of the probs is that the pics taken under most red reflectors make all reds appear at the same saturation and no distinction can be made between facets that are reflecting back light at greater intensity vs light being returned at weaker intensity. The BrillianceScope amazingly shows me these differences.




Someone brought up that the B'scope & Isee2 is similar to the HCA. While I appreciate the HCA and greatlly respect Gary (he is a friend of mine) there is one factor that everyone here seems to be either ignoring or are just not aware of. The HCA is a prediction based on the averages of 18 of 58 facets and assumes perfect optical symmetry. First, less than 1% of diamonds cut have what we might consider perfect optical symmetry (most are a sloppy mess) and secondly the BrillianceScope and Isee2 technologies are not a prediction based on a limited amount of facets but an analysis of light interaction within the actual diamond itself through ALL of the facets of the diamond. You can not compare that to the HCA as these tools are far more superior because they are based on a "live" analysis. We've had diamonds test GREAT on the HCA that didn't do so well in our tests.




While the Isee2 is a newer technology I can say the same about it's repeatability. At most we've only found it to be .1 or .2 variance but a quick calibration and everything is back to normal. When clients come to our store we physically show them diamonds that test differently under both technologies and the light conditions that flatter the results of each. If they did not confirm what the human eye sees within their respective tests I would be the first to blow the trumpet and demonstrate *why* they were bogus. However each day as I test more and more diamonds I always find that the rarest and most beautifullly cut diamonds are those that get the highest results via these technologies.




My .02c,


Rhino

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 1/15/2004 12:14:34 PM Rhino wrote:



Aldejay... the repeatability of it is as excellent as any other technology for measuring diamonds----------------

But, Jonathan, that's precisely my point. It's may be as good as any other fancy "technological tool", but that doesn't make any of them reliable enough to substitute for a hands-on (or more accurately, eyes-on) evaluation.

I noted that the same diamond can be scanned in the b/scope three separate times and yield three separate (and varying) results. If you're telling me that the B/scope is as reliable as any other technology, then you're essentially saying that none of the technologies can produce repeatable results. There's a difference between something being "good" and something being "as good as anything else".

Put another way: Assume I'm one of ten students taking an exam. I and the other nine students score 70 out of a possible 100 on the exam. The fact that I scored as well as any other student taking the test doesn't mean I did well on exam. Doing well on the exam would be scoring a 90 or better. Same thing with the B/Scope.

Again, I'm not saying that information from the b/scope cannot be useful. I'm saying that a consumer should take this (and any other techie toy) with a grain of salt and look at the total picture when trying to select a diamond. If every indicator points to a diamond being a GREAT performer, but the b/scope shows 3 highs instead of 3 VHs......I think it would be a mistake to discard that diamond from consideration JUST because the b/scope results weren't VH.

 

[niceice]

I still want to see a well cut yellow diamond run on the Brilliance Scope... Since several of the dealers here on PS have a Brilliance Scope on the premises, this should be easy enough to do... Is anybody besides us wondering why nobody wants to do it?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Ever looked at a diamond with one eye closed, then 2 open, then 1 etc?

You will see more fire with 2 eyes than with 1 about 1 1/2 to 2 times more fire - and each eye sees a different image.

If you then look at the stone with one eye and the stone centered to that one eye - it looks different than it does to the 2 eyes.

I have considered patenting a binocular ideal-scope.
I have made one with a microscope

It is interesting, but not suficiently different to a monocular view.
But for a pixel counter the differences could be rather large from the monocular with a ring light compared to the human binocular with point lights.

 

[pqcollectibles]

When I was buying last spring, I can't count the number of BS light pic motion loops I watched. This diamond. That diamond. I wondered how close the loop came to what you would see in real life.

Brilliance Scope pics are taken of the diamond laying its table on a glass plate with the the light source in motion. Glass has optical properties of its own. The table of the diamond gets blasted with light much like a flash bulb taking a photograph.

Diamonds don't spend life sitting on their tables in box of flashbulbs going off like a red carpet at a movie premier. Diamonds rock and roll on the motion of people with all types of light entering from many angles.

The Brilliance Scope is simply a screening tool for buying without seeing in person. Rolling a diamond and watching it play with light with your own set of eyes cannot be replaced by any means. Personal interaction is the ultimate test.

 

[niceice]

And Gary makes the point "pixel counter"... Let it sink in awhile...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Imagine what it must be like for the siamese twins (Robin and Todd) to grade diamonds!!!
They have 4 eyes - you guys would never agree with the brillscope

 

[niceice]

----------------
On 1/15/2004 11:48:14 PM Cut Nut wrote:

Imagine what it must be like for the siamese twins (Robin and Todd) to grade diamonds!!!
They have 4 eyes - you guys would never agree with the brillscope----------------

True, very true. Like many things, we think that it is an interesting work in progress, but we don't think it should be relied on as a determinating factor when buying a diamond... The same goes true for the Fire Scope, Light Scope, SymmetriScope, whatever you want to call it... It's an interesting tool, we have a SymmetriScope and use it during our selection process for curiosity purposes however we wouldn't rely on it exclusively as so many people seem to do... After all, if you were to change the angle of the cone, all would change wouldn't it?

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 1/15/2004 2:05:07 PM aljdewey wrote:



But, Jonathan, that's precisely my point. It's may be as good as any other fancy 'technological tool', but that doesn't make any of them reliable enough to substitute for a hands-on (or more accurately, eyes-on) evaluation. ----------------

Hm...And what would make eyesight reliable, Aljewey ? It really is not. I would imagine that my old mother would see no difference between an I1 and a an IF diamond even with a loupe: not that I would be surprised knowing that I have 20/20 vision and she has thick glasses. But his is not even the thing: experience is. I do not know how many diamonds pass in front of you daily, but most buyers would have hardly seen any decent number of comparable rocks. Eyesight is as good as one's experience and knowledge is. Otherwise, just a bigger electricity bill makes all diamonds in a shop look great, one by one

.

Eyesight has one great quality: it produces an integrated mental picture of the stone (something some call "make" saying, I guess, that their experience allows to evaluate a stone against vast personal experience of this "overall" view on thousands of diamonds). This is deceptively easy for the eye, and a NIGHTMARE to measure. Unless there happens to exist ONE physical measurement for this overall visual impact (such as mass and gravity are for the mental perception of weight) there is no hard rule for combining a bunch of different measurements in an objective way. On top of it, one would have to consider how probable measurement errors relate to each other o not, etc...

For example, in the picture below, I would say that diamonds 1 and 3 have the same performance and that diamonds 2 and 4 would look very close indeed. If this is wrong, below is the explanation of my understanding of these readings. I would be very grateful to receive some feedback on the paragraph below, but this is what I would have to say about these Scopes based on my own experience with developing similarly combined (economic) indices of empiric measurements.

In my opinion, both "visual precision" and "experience" relate to different features of those Scopes.
As far as precision is concerned, if one expects that half a notch of B-Scope scale makes a difference and chooses between two diamond according to this, then, well, good luck. If this would be the purpose of the B-Scope, than the regions of the scale (low-med-high-Vh) would not be there: they surely have a purpose. On most such ranking tools, segments of the scale are strongly related to the PRECISION of the instrument. For example, how much sense would it make to mark half-seconds on a watch which marks the hour with 3 second precision? And good chronographs are expensive for a reason... Compared to the Bscope, a watch is very simple indeed, since time is a well-defined, fundamental (not composite) measurement, while each Bscope scale accounts for a complex measure and there are three of them! If, as Jonathan says, B-score results may vary with "half bar", this is good precision given how the scale of the instrument is segmented.

Experience - something buyers lack - should be incorporated in the scaling of these instruments. In theory, the Scope's scale covers a range between top possible performance and some undesirable, but unfortunately encountered bottom. The definition of each greatly affects which stones would fall under which notch of the scale. Imagine what would happen if the B-scope scales would range between top theoretical (practically unattainable performance) and what a good H&A does: almost all diamonds would fall below the bottom of such a scale. Conversely, if "bottom" is what some industrial quality pique does to light, most of those diamonds PS reveres would just peg the scale to it's top and there would be no way to tell them apart. Conclusion: THIS IS NOT AN EASY EXERCISE. And precision itself is merely he beginning.

 

[valeria101]

Here's the picture. The examples are real readings, not created examples...

 

[niceice]

The point of discussion is not whether the Brilliance Scope has the capability of measuring different levels of light return, but rather whether it is accurate... A watch might have half second marks, but that doesn't mean that it is running on time. There is a reason why the major gemological laboratories decided not to use it after extensive testing.

 

[strmrdr]

niceice,
Im going to put you on the spot a little if that is ok? if not just ignore me.

How would you go about evauluating a diamond from an internet vendor if you were a consumer?
Furthermore the only tool you have a a loup and maybe a h&a viewer to evaluate the diamond once you get it.

What would you ask for?

What information would be the min. you would accept?

Which would be nice to have but not required?

Having 20 stones sent in to a local appraiser is not a practical answer for the average consumer.

 

[glitterata]

Very interesting, Cut Nut, I was wondering what those tools would look like if they took both eyes into account.

PQ and Valeria: When you view the diamond, you have three variables: the positions of the diamond, the light source, and your eye. (Let's assume for simplicity sake that we can ignore Cut Nut's point and you're only using one eye.) As I understand it, the BS holds the diamond and the camera still and moves the light source. In this case, the camera is standing in for your eye. That's a different situation from if the diamond is moving with respect to your eye, which is how people usually view diamonds. I guess it might be comparable to the diamond sitting still on your hand on the steering wheel as you stare at it without moving your head, while your car moves with respect to the sun. But in that case, I'd be afraid you'd crash. Surely in real life you'd move your head and/or your hand. And besides, the BS has only a few positions (what is it, five?), while the sun moves through infinitely many positions with respect to the car.

Add to that Cut Nut's whole binocular can of worms.

 

[derekinla]

Great points Valeria!

The real world utility of any scientific assay is best understood when one considers the performance characteristics of the particular analytical technique. Precision, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values are all important things to consider. I wonder.....has the GIA ever done experiments looking to validate the accuracy and precision of the BScope scores? You would think that such an undertaking would have already been completed and reported in some gemological journal....

 

[valeria101]

Nothing all that great really...I guess it is a matter of time until the use of some cut quality measuring tool picks up and the questions about the concept and it's measurement follow the $$$. I would not expect to find this kind of debate in either the academic or industry press now, before cut quality fills more page on diamond reports. I would however expect the makers of Bscope or any scope to not only make this info available but also insure somehow that their tools are not used beyond their *scope*: i.e. results are not over-interpreted. I know there is some attempt to sell this info (i.e. charge for having B-scope results certified by the B-scope maker, if I am not confusing the instrument in cause), which is sort of understandable. After all, the warning on Bscope readings is clear enough: "Preliminary Scales, subject to change". I guess "preliminary" is the key word. Forget about the "perfect diamond" concept. Any of these tools (Isee2, and scopes & All) are surely good enough (and interesting enough,

) for me, for what they are worth.

 

[BrianTheCutter]

My take on it
http://www.nist.gov/

BrillianceScope = Simply it would fail! It would not attain the minimum standards that the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) would require for it to pass as an accurate repeatable measuring device?

Isee2 = Have no experience at it, but going by my past experiences with this type of technology I have my doubts?

Just give me a simple H&A scope and i'll tell you all about it
How, where, what, why and when?

 

[niceice]

----------------
On 1/16/2004 1:30:32 AM strmrdr wrote:

niceice,
Im going to put you on the spot a little if that is ok? if not just ignore me.

How would you go about evauluating a diamond from an internet vendor if you were a consumer?
Furthermore the only tool you have a a loup and maybe a h&a viewer to evaluate the diamond once you get it.

What would you ask for?

What information would be the min. you would accept?

Which would be nice to have but not required?

Having 20 stones sent in to a local appraiser is not a practical answer for the average consumer.

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

No worries, we don't mind being "put on the spot" but we did almost miss your question simply because the thread got kind of buried...

We would only consider doing business with somebody who actually sees the diamonds that they sell as opposed to merely mirroring the list of diamonds offered by their vendors. The diamonds offered by companies like ourselves, GOG, WF, SC and a segment of the diamonds offered by DCD, have been hand selected for maximum visual performance. The BS is a consumer marketing tool and in our opinion the only thing brilliant about it is the marketing. If we thought that it was essential or even somewhat reliable we would have one here in the store... After all, we did spend $45K for a high tech version of the OGI Mega Scope, purchased a SymmetriScope from 8*, a $7K lab quality version of the Gems Fantasy / Hearts & Arrows scope, and have a myriad of other gemological equipment on the premises, we're not afraid to spend money on things that add value to the service that we provide - we just don't think that the BS does that and we refuse to support it's use as we feel it is misleading. We have a feeling that at some point in the future, the vendors who rely on it to sell diamonds are going to be standing amidst the public with a bit of egg on their faces...

With this in mind, we ask again... Would anybody care to drop a yellow diamond on that puppy and publish the results?

Of the vendors who purchase diamonds for inventory and do not drop ship diamonds from their vendors to their clients, a few of us have developed reputations for not selling anything that is not accurately graded; presents a durability risk; contains eye visible inclusions - unless CLEARLY documented as doing so... By investigating the reputation and track record of the various vendors, it is relatively easy for consumers to weed out the more reputable vendors from the pack of companies that are trying to sell diamonds on the internet. Truth be told, we never intended to sell diamonds on the internet and the focus of our site is Education First and Diamond Sales second... Anybody who is familiar with our site knows this... We feel that the same holds true for the site layout of GOG although we choose to differ on our opinion of the BS, we enjoy Jonathan as a competitor and feel that he is a valuable resource to our industry and the diamond buying community. We don't feel that sites like BN add anything of value to the community other than the trickle down effect that they provide in terms of consumer awareness through their advertising... We LOVE their trickle down effect! They tend to make people aware of the concept of buying diamonds and jewelry on-line, but fail to realize their needs for education and information.

The reality is that once the proportions of the diamond are controlled and the facet shape and alignment are taken into account, the overall visual performance is for the most part pre-destined provided that the cutter cut the diamond in orientation with the grain of the stone... Either the diamond will perform as expected or it will not. And let's face it, none of us are going to purchase a diamond for inventory that does not meet our expectations in terms of cut, clarity, color, visual performance because as volume dealers, we don't have to... Those of us with any sort of volume on the internet have the power to reject any diamond which does not meet our selection criteria for ANY reason. It's not like the days when our annual volume was a couple hundred thousand per year and the cutters tried to force us to take J-K color, SI-2's so that we could get the D - I color, VS-2 ++ that we wanted... They are too afraid that we'll tell them to drop dead and take our volume elsewhere, so we "CHERRY PICK" our cutter's inventory before it has even cleared the laboratory from being graded based upon the preliminary grade of each stone and then have the diamonds shipped to us for physical evaluation... You can bet that we return anything that we don't like to the cutters for the "list merchants" to sift through. Just yesterday we rejected eight out of a parcel of ten ideal cut diamonds that were shipped to us for evaluation by one of our cutters... All of the diamonds appeared to be "yummy" on paper, but were rejected due to the extent of the inclusions... Several contained indented naturals on the surface of the table facet, those appeared to be diamond crystals on the black and white copy of the lab report which was faxed to us for consideration... Although the cutter knows that we reject for this type of inclusion, they apparently figured that we would overlook it once we saw how beautiful the diamonds were... They were indeed beautiful, but the fact is that we're not going to represent anything that we are uncomfortable with, we returned the diamonds and the cutter is likely not to say a word...

While many of the on-line vendors share certain suppliers, none of us can take everything produced by the larger cutting houses, and each of us have specific smaller suppliers from whom we purchase most of their offerings and thus maintain our certain levels of exclusivity in the market. Because those of us who purchase diamonds for inventory have "first pick of the litter" over the "list merchants" we are able to offer the best diamonds to our clients. This is the type of merchant that consumers should be buying their diamonds from.

Detailed proportions analysis / verification of the proportions analysis provided by the laboratories is a must!

Detailed clarity photographs indicating the type, location and extent of the inclusions is a must! How visible are they? Are they light, dark, translucent? These are things that can not be determined by a one dimensional plotting diagram on a black and white copy of a lab report that was faxed to the vendor by their supplier and then scanned and placed on-line... Get color copies of the original and insist that the original lab report be sent along with the diamond for your evaluation!

It is not necessary to send twenty diamonds to an independent appraiser if the buyer does a little homework in advance... A reputable seller can weed out the definites from the possibilities if they take an honest interest in the needs of the client rather than simply trying to make a sale. Do you have any idea how many diamonds we sell for other people? It might surprise you, but we do so with the knowledge that we have sold a lot of diamonds to people who have been referred by other people who we helped purchase a diamond from ACA, GOG, SC, DCD, BN, Mondera or a local retailer... People appreciate good service and honest advice and they remember merchants who take the time to provide it... A few of the other internet vendors seem to share our enthusiasm for providing this type of service, those are the vendors that people should rely on when making a purchase of this magnitude, not a machine that has yet to be proven.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 1/16/2004 12:06:36 AM valeria101 wrote:




Hm...And what would make eyesight reliable, Aljewey ? It really is not. I would imagine that my old mother would see no difference between an I1 and a an IF diamond even with a loupe----------------

You're missing the point, Val. I'm not suggesting that people are all buying against a static ideal of beauty.

A person wants to know that they diamond they buy will be sparkly and beautiful. That's IT. And none of the instruments "sees" three-dimensionally the way the human eye does. I'm not suggesting that the eye sees to a definite science......nor is that the criteria of the question.

And I'm not suggesting to go corral a color-blind, know-nothing off the street to evaluate said diamond. My definition of eyes-on is "do I like what I see AND do I like what my *appraiser* tells me HE sees?". No offense meant at all, but I didn't have your mom in mind to evaluate a stone I might consider (unless, of course, she's an experienced, independent appraiser)